Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incorporating Variation and Quality of the Underlying Effects in Meta-Analysis

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a model to further explore the effects of the quality information and variation of the underlying effects on the summary effect measure in meta-analysis. A shape parameter is used in this model to quantify the asymmetry of the effect sizes of studies that are included. Estimation of the proposed model parameters is carried out by the Bayesian MCMC method. Performances of the resultant estimates are examined in the simulations and empirical case with data obtained from a total of 22 meta-analyses taken from three different designs. A conclusion would be drawn that it is advisable to take the proposed model, when quality information becomes available, in particular with a situation where the underlying effects approximately follow a normal distribution. If, however, the quality information is absent, the skew-normal distribution for random effect model should be adopted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sutton A J and Higgins J P T, Recent development in meta-analysis, Statistics in Medicine, 2008, 27(5): 625–650.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Hozo S P, Djulbegovic B, and Hozo I, Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2005, 5(1): 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, et al., Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2014, 14(1): 135–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, et al., Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 2018, 27(6): 1785–1805.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. DerSimonian R and Laird N, Meta-analysis in clinical trials, Controlled Clinical Trials, 1986, 7(3): 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Senn S, Trying to be precise about vagueness, Statistics in Medicine, 2007, 26(7): 1417–1430.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Verhagen A P, de Vet H C W, de Bie R A, et al., The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2001, 54(7): 651–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berard A and Bravo G, Combining studies using effect sizes and quality scores: Application to bone loss in postmenopausal women, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1998, 51(10): 801–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tritchler D L, Modelling study quality in meta-analysis, Statistics in Medicine, 1999, 18(16): 2135–2145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleiss J L and Gross A J, Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: A critique, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1991, 44(2): 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shadish W R and Haddock C K, Combining estimates of effect size, Eds. by Cooper H, Hedges L V, and Valentine J C, The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (p.257 C277). Russell Sage Foundation, 2009.

  12. Doi S A R and Thalib L, A quality-effects model for meta-analysis, Epidemiology, 2008, 19(1): 94–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Doi S A R, Barendregt J J, and Mozurkewich E L, Meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials: An empirical example, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 2011, 32(2): 288–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Doi S A R, Barendregt J J, Khan S, et al., Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: The quality effects model, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 2015, 45: 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Doi S A R, Barendregt J J, Khan S, et al., Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 2015, 45: 130–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Greenland S and O’Rourke K, On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions, Biostatistics, 2001, 2(4): 463–471.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Ahn S and Becker B J, Incorporating quality scores in meta-analysis, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 2011, 36(5): 555–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee K J and Thompson S G, Flexible parametric models for random-effects distributions, Statistics in Medicine, 2008, 27(3): 418–434.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Arellano-Valle R B, Bolfarine H, and Lachos V H, Skew-normal linear mixed models, Journal of Data Science, 2005, 3(4): 415–438.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin T I and Lee J C, Estimation and prediction in linear mixed models with skew-normal random effects for longitudinal data, Statistics in Medicine, 2008, 27(9): 1490–1507.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu M, Zhao J, Wang T, et al., The ANOVA-type inference in linear mixed model with skew-normal error, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 2017, 30(3): 710–720.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Macgillivray H L, Skewness and asymmetry: Measures and orderings, The Annals of Statistics, 1986, 14(3): 994–1011.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Wen F and Yang X, Skewness of return distribution and coefficient of risk premium, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 2009, 22(3): 360–371.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Bailey K R, Inter-study differences: How should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results? Statistics in Medicine, 1987, 6(3): 351–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Turner R M, Spiegelhalter D J, Smith G C S, et al., Bias modelling in evidence synthesis, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 2009, 172(1): 21–47.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson S, Ekelund U, Jebb S, et al., A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies, International Journal of Epidemiology, 2010, 40(3): 765–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Spiegelhalter D J and Best N G, Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost effectiveness modelling, Statistics in Medicine, 2003, 22: 3687–3709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Doi S A R, Evidence synthesis for medical decision making and the appropriate use of quality scores, Clinical Medicine & Research, 2014, 12(1–2): 40–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kulinskaya E and Olkin I, An overdispersion model in meta-analysis, Statistical Modelling, 2014, 14(1): 49–76.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Pewsey A, Problems of inference for Azzalini’s skewnormal distribution, Journal of Applied Statistics, 2000, 27(7): 859–870.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Bayes C L and Branco E, Bayesian inference for the skewness parameter of the scalar skew-normal distribution, Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 2007, 21(2): 141–163.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Gelman A, Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper), Bayesian Analysis, 2006, 1(3): 515–534.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Doi S A R, Woodhouse N J, Thalib L, et al., Ablation of the thyroid remnant and I-131 dose in differentiated thyroid cancer: A meta-analysis revisited, Clinical Medicine and Research, 2007, 5(2): 87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Higgins P T and Green S, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Arellano-Valle R B, Gmez, Hctor W, and Quintana F A, A new class of skew-normal distributions, Communications in Statistics — Theory and Methods, 2004, 33(7): 1465–1480.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Azzalini A, A class of distributions which includes the normal ones, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 1985, 12(2): 171–178.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Henze N, A probabilistic representation of the skew-normal distribution, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 1986, 13(4): 271–275.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Gupta R C and Brown N, Reliability studies of the skew-normal distribution and its application to a strength-stress model, Communications in Statistics — Theory and Methods, 2001, 30(11): 2427–2445.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China

    Jinyu Fu & Jinguan Lin

  2. School of Statistics and Data Science, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing, 211815, China

    Jinguan Lin

Authors
  1. Jinyu Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jinguan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinguan Lin.

Additional information

This research was supported by the Natural Science Research Foundation of China (Key Projects) under Grant No. 11831008, the Natural Science Research Foundation of China under Grant No. 11971235.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fu, J., Lin, J. Incorporating Variation and Quality of the Underlying Effects in Meta-Analysis. J Syst Sci Complex 35, 2381–2397 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-022-1429-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-022-1429-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation