Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2014; 53(01): 54-61
DOI: 10.3414/ME13-01-0073
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

A Simplification and Implementation of Random-effects Meta-analyses Based on the Exact Distribution of Cochran’s Q

M. Preuß
1   Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universität zu Lübeck, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
,
A. Ziegler
1   Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universität zu Lübeck, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
2   Zentrum für Klinische Studien, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 26 June 2013

accepted: 08 October 2013

Publication Date:
20 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: The random-effects (RE) model is the standard choice for meta-analysis in the presence of heterogeneity, and the stand ard RE method is the DerSimonian and Laird (DSL) approach, where the degree of heterogeneity is estimated using a moment-estimator. The DSL approach does not take into account the variability of the estimated heterogeneity variance in the estimation of Cochran’s Q. Biggerstaff and Jackson derived the exact cumulative distribution function (CDF) of Q to account for the variability of Ť 2.

Objectives: The first objective is to show that the explicit numerical computation of the density function of Cochran’s Q is not required. The second objective is to develop an R package with the possibility to easily calculate the classical RE method and the new exact RE method.

Methods: The novel approach was validated in extensive simulation studies. The different approaches used in the simulation studies, including the exact weights RE meta-analysis, the I 2 and T 2 estimates together with their confidence intervals were implemented in the R package metaxa.

Results: The comparison with the classical DSL method showed that the exact weights RE meta-analysis kept the nominal type I error level better and that it had greater power in case of many small studies and a single large study. The Hedges RE approach had inflated type I error levels. Another advantage of the exact weights RE meta-analysis is that an exact confidence interval for T 2is readily available. The exact weights RE approach had greater power in case of few studies, while the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach was superior in case of a large number of studies. Differences between the exact weights RE meta-analysis and the DSL approach were observed in the re-analysis of real data sets. Application of the exact weights RE meta-analysis, REML, and the DSL approach to real data sets showed that conclusions between these methods differed.

Conclusions: The simplification does not require the calculation of the density of Cochran’s Q, but only the calculation of the cumulative distribution function, while the previous approach required the computation of both the density and the cumulative distribution function. It thus reduces computation time, improves numerical stability, and reduces the approximation error in meta-analysis. The different approaches, including the exact weights RE meta-analysis, the I 2 and T 2estimates together with their confidence intervals are available in the R package metaxa, which can be used in applications.

Keywords

Cochran’s Q - DerSimonian and Laird - exact weights - random-effects - meta-analysis - I 2 - T 2

 

  • References

  • 1 Chen MH, Ibrahim JG, Shah AK, Lin J, Yao H. Meta-analysis methods and models with applications in evaluation of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Stat Med 2012; 31: 3597-3616.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188. (086) 90046-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Viechtbauer W. Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model. J Educ Behav Stat 2005; 30: 261-293.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hedges LV. A random effects model for effect sizes. Psychol Bull 1983; 93: 388-395.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Raudenbush SW. Analyzing effect sizes: Random effects Models. In Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. (eds.) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. 2009. 2 295-315. Russell Sage Foundation; New York:
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie RL. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1997; 16: 753-768. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7753::AID-SIM494>3.0.CO;2-G
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Biggerstaff BJ, Jackson D. The exact distribution of Cochran’s heterogeneity statistic in one-way random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med 2008; 27: 6093-6110.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Henmi M, Copas JB. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias. Stat Med 2010; 29: 2969-2983.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Farebrother RW. Algorithm AS 204: The Distribution of a Positive Linear Combination of χ2 Random Variables. Appl Stat-J Roy St C 1984; 33: 332-339.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Imhof JP. Computing the distribution of quadratic forms in normal variables. Biometrika 1961; 48: 419-426.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Duchesne P, Lafaye De Micheaux P. Computing the distribution of quadratic forms: Further comparisons between the Liu-Tang-Zhang approximation and exact methods. Comput Stat Data An 2010; 54: 858-862. 11.025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mittlböck M, Heinzl H. A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Stat Med 2006; 25: 4321-4333.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schunkert H, König IR, Kathiresan S, Reilly MP, Assimes TL, Holm H. et al Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet 2011; 43: 333-338.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Preuss M, König IR, Thompson JR, Erdmann J, Absher D, Assimes TL. et al Design of the Coronary ARtery DIsease Genome-Wide Replication And Meta-Analysis (CARDIoGRAM) Study/ Clinical Perspective. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2010; 3: 475-483. 109.899443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ramdas WD. et al Common genetic variants associated with open-angle glaucoma. Hum Mol Genet 2011; 20: 2464-2471.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Follmann DA, Proschan MA. Valid Inference in Random Effects Meta-Analysis. Biometrics 1999; 55: 732-737. 00732.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bhaumik DK, Amatya A, Normand SL, Greenhouse J, Kaizar E, Neelon B. et al Meta-Analysis of Rare Binary Adverse Event Data. J Am Stat Assoc 2012; 107: 555-567. 2012.664484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Feng L, Li Y, Li J, Yu B. Oral anticoagulation continuation compared with heparin bridging therapy among high risk patients undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices. Thromb Haemostasis 2012; 108: 1124-1131. 0498
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shepperd S, Doll H, Broad J, Gladman J, Iliffe S, Langhorne P. et al Hospital at home early discharge. Cochrane DB Syst Rev 2009; 1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Laroia N, Phelps DL, Roy J. Double wall versus single wall incubator for reducing heat loss in very low birth weight infants in incubators. Cochrane DB Syst Rev 2007; 2 CD004215.pub2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar