Objectives Estimation of between-study heterogeneity is problematic in small meta-analyses. Bayesian meta-analysis is beneficial because it allows incorporation of external evidence on heterogeneity. To facilitate this, we provide empirical evidence on the likely heterogeneity between studies in meta-analyses relating to specific research settings. Study Design and Setting Our analyses included 6,492 continuous-outcome meta-analyses within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We investigated the influence of meta-analysis settings on heterogeneity by modeling study data from all meta-analyses on the standardized mean difference scale. Meta-analysis setting was described according to outcome type, intervention comparison type, and medical area. Predictive distributions for between-study variance expected in future meta-analyses were obtained, which can be used directly as informative priors. Results Among outcome types, heterogeneity was found to be lowest in meta-analyses of obstetric outcomes. Among intervention comparison types, heterogeneity was lowest in meta-analyses comparing two pharmacologic interventions. Predictive distributions are reported for different settings. In two example meta-analyses, incorporating external evidence led to a more precise heterogeneity estimate. Conclusion Heterogeneity was influenced by meta-analysis characteristics. Informative priors for between-study variance were derived for each specific setting. Our analyses thus assist the incorporation of realistic prior information into meta-analyses including few studies.
Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data
K. Rhodes,R. Turner,J. Higgins
Published 2015 in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2015
- Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publication date
2015-01-01
- Fields of study
Medicine
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar, PubMed
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
- No claims are published for this paper.
CONCEPTS
- No concepts are published for this paper.
REFERENCES
Showing 1-20 of 20 references · Page 1 of 1