ArticleStatistics and its interface2020
Statistical Methods for Quantifying Between-study Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis with Focus on Rare Binary Events.
Article in Statistics and its interface, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 8 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery models on dyspnoea, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in chronic respiratory disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The superior mesenteric artery angle in diagnosis of nutcracker syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of efficacy and safety of different anticoagulation regimens in plasma exchange: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Care intervention on psychological outcomes among patients admitted to intensive care unit: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Bayesian estimation and testing in random-effects meta-analysis of rare binary events allowing for flexible group variability.Statistics in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Heterogeneity estimation in meta-analysis of standardized mean differences when the distribution of random effects departs from normal: A Monte Carlo simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Convolutional neural network-based artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of early esophageal cancer based on endoscopic images: A meta-analysis.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationPooled it
- Prognostic Impact of MYC/TP63 Molecular Subtypes in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2026Review
- The association between gestational diabetes mellitus and cancer in women: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2025Article
- Jackknife empirical likelihood confidence intervals for assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis of rare binary event data.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Article
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
Meta-analysis, the statistical procedure for combining results from multiple independent studies, has been widely used in medical research to evaluate intervention efficacy and drug safety. In many practical situations, treatment effects vary notably among the collected studies, and the variation, often modeled by the between-study variance parameter
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.