ArticleStats2025
Exact Inference for Random Effects Meta-Analyses for Small, Sparse Data.
Article in Stats, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis and dose-response analysis of low-temperature stress effects on rice yield and physiological responses.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Meta-analysis aggregates information across related studies to provide more reliable statistical inference and has been a vital tool for assessing the safety and efficacy of many high-profile pharmaceutical products. A key challenge in conducting a meta-analysis is that the number of related studies is typically small. Applying classical methods that are asymptotic in the number of studies can compromise the validity of inference, particularly when heterogeneity across studies is present. Moreover, serious adverse events are often rare and can result in one or more studies with no events in at least one study arm. Practitioners remove studies in which no events have occurred in one or both arms or apply arbitrary continuity corrections (e.g., adding one event to arms with zero events) to stabilize or define effect estimates in such settings, which can further invalidate subsequent inference. To address these significant practical issues, we introduce an exact inference method for random effects meta-analysis of a treatment effect in the two-sample setting with rare events, which we coin "XRRmeta". In contrast to existing methods, XRRmeta provides valid inference for meta-analysis in the presence of between-study heterogeneity and when the event rates, number of studies, and/or the within-study sample sizes are small. Extensive numerical studies indicate that XRRmeta does not yield overly conservative inference. We apply our proposed method to two real-data examples using our open-source R package.
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.