ArticlePloS one2024
A new estimator of between study variance of standardized mean difference in meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of different environmental experiments regarding the populations, location, time, and so on. These results will differ more than the within-study variance, and the true effects being evaluated differ between studies. Thus, heterogeneity is present and should be measured. There are different estimators that were introduced to estimate between-study variance, which has received a lot of criticism from previous researchers. All of the estimators encountered the same problem, which was the correlation. To minimize the potential biases caused by interventions between the three estimators (i.e., overall effect size, within-study variance, and between-study variance), we proposed a new measure of heterogeneity known as the Environmental Effect Ratio (EER), the treatment-by-lab variability relative to the experimental error, under individual participant data (IPD) using the linear mixed model approach. We assume different between-study variances instead of constant between-study variances. The simulation of this study focuses on the performance of meta-analyses with small sample sizes. We compared our proposed estimator under two different expressions ([Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]) with the best estimator nominated from previous studies to determine which one is the best performance. Based on the findings, our estimator ([Formula: see text]) was better for estimating between-study variance.
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.