ArticleResearch synthesis methods2019
Statistical properties of methods based on the Q-statistic for constructing a confidence interval for the between-study variance in meta-analysis.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence of Substance Use Among Adolescents in South Africa.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Pooled it
- Cosmetic Botulinum Toxin A Injections to the Upper Face: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Mortality of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies versus solid tumors: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Variability in Intracranial Vessel Diameters and Considerations for Neurovascular Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Morphological Characteristics of Ruptured Brain Aneurysms: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on health-related quality of life in the general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of anesthesia type on hip fracture post-surgery outcomes.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2022Article
- Remdesivir therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- Statistical Methods for Quantifying Between-study Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis with Focus on Rare Binary Events.Statistics and its interface · 2020Article
- Statistical properties of methods based on the Q-statistic for constructing a confidence interval for the between-study variance in meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The effect sizes of studies included in a meta-analysis do often not share a common true effect size due to differences in for instance the design of the studies. Estimates of this so-called between-study variance are usually imprecise. Hence, reporting a confidence interval together with a point estimate of the amount of between-study variance facilitates interpretation of the meta-analytic results. Two methods that are recommended to be used for creating such a confidence interval are the Q-profile and generalized Q-statistic method that both make use of the Q-statistic. These methods are exact if the assumptions underlying the random-effects model hold, but these assumptions are usually violated in practice such that confidence intervals of the methods are approximate rather than exact confidence intervals. We illustrate by means of two Monte-Carlo simulation studies with odds ratio as effect size measure that coverage probabilities of both methods can be substantially below the nominal coverage rate in situations that are representative for meta-analyses in practice. We also show that these too low coverage probabilities are caused by violations of the assumptions of the random-effects model (ie, normal sampling distributions of the effect size measure and known sampling variances) and are especially prevalent if the sample sizes in the primary studies are small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.