Show simple item record

AuthorDoi, Suhail A R
AuthorFuruya-Kanamori, Luis
Available date2019-12-15T05:04:39Z
Publication Date2019-12-01
Publication NameInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcareen_US
Identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000207
CitationDoi, Suhail A.R. & Furuya-Kanamori, Luis. "Selecting the best meta-analytic estimator for evidence-based practice: a simulation study" International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare.
ISSN1744-1595
IdentifierPMID: 31764215
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10576/12397
AbstractStudies included in meta-analysis can produce results that depart from the true population parameter of interest due to systematic and/or random errors. Synthesis of these results in meta-analysis aims to generate an estimate closer to the true population parameter by minimizing these errors across studies. The inverse variance heterogeneity (IVhet), quality effects and random effects models of meta-analysis all attempt to do this, but there remains controversy around the estimator that best achieves this goal of reducing error. In an attempt to answer this question, a simulation study was conducted to compare estimator performance. Five thousand iterations at 10 different levels of heterogeneity were run, with each iteration generating one meta-analysis. The results demonstrate that the IVhet and quality effects estimators, though biased, have the lowest mean squared error. These estimators also achieved a coverage probability at or above the nominal level (95%), whereas the coverage probability under the random effects estimator significantly declined (<80%) as heterogeneity increased despite a similar confidence interval width. Based on our findings, we would recommend the use of the IVhet and quality effects models and a discontinuation of traditional random effects models currently in use for meta-analysis.
Languageen
PublisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Subjectmeta-analysis
Subjectcomparison of models
Subjectsimulation
SubjectIVhet
SubjectQE
SubjectRE
TitleSelecting the best meta-analytic estimator for evidence-based practice: a simulation study.
TypeArticle
dc.identifier.essn 1744-1609


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record