|
|
xv | |
|
|
xix | |
Acknowledgements |
|
xxv | |
Preface |
|
xxvii | |
Preface to the Second Edition |
|
xxxv | |
Website |
|
xxxvii | |
|
|
|
1 How A Meta-Analysis Works |
|
|
3 | (6) |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
3 | (2) |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
Heterogeneity of effect sizes |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
2 Why Perform A Meta-Analysis |
|
|
9 | (8) |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
The streptokinase meta-analysis |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
Clinical importance of the effect |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
|
13 | (4) |
|
PART 2 EFFECT SIZE AND PRECISION |
|
|
|
|
17 | (4) |
|
Treatment effects and effect sizes |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
Outline of effect size computations |
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
4 Effect Sizes Based On Means |
|
|
21 | (12) |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
Raw (unstandardized) mean difference D |
|
|
21 | (4) |
|
Standardized mean difference, d and g |
|
|
25 | (5) |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
|
31 | (2) |
|
5 Effect Sizes Based On Binary Data (2 × 2 Tables) |
|
|
33 | (6) |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
|
33 | (2) |
|
|
35 | (2) |
|
|
37 | (1) |
|
Choosing an effect size index |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
6 Effect Sizes Based On Correlations |
|
|
39 | (4) |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
|
41 | (2) |
|
7 Converting Among Effect Sizes |
|
|
43 | (6) |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
Converting from the log odds ratio to d |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
Converting from d to the log odds ratio |
|
|
45 | (1) |
|
|
45 | (1) |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
|
47 | (2) |
|
8 Factors That Affect Precision |
|
|
49 | (6) |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
Factors that affect precision |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
|
51 | (2) |
|
|
53 | (2) |
|
|
55 | (4) |
|
PART 3 FIXED-EFFECT VERSUS RANDOM-EFFECTS MODELS |
|
|
|
|
59 | (2) |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
|
60 | (1) |
|
|
61 | (4) |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
|
61 | (2) |
|
Performing a fixed-effect meta-analysis |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
|
65 | (6) |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
|
66 | (2) |
|
Performing a random-effects meta-analysis |
|
|
68 | (2) |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
13 Fixed-Effect Versus Random-Effects Models |
|
|
71 | (10) |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
Definition of a summary effect |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
Estimating the summary effect |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
Extreme effect size in a large study or a small study |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
|
73 | (3) |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
Which model should we use? |
|
|
76 | (2) |
|
Model should not be based on the test for heterogeneity |
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
14 Worked Examples (Part 1) |
|
|
81 | (16) |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
Worked example for continuous data (Part 1) |
|
|
81 | (4) |
|
Worked example for binary data (Part 1) |
|
|
85 | (5) |
|
Worked example for correlational data (Part 1) |
|
|
90 | (4) |
|
|
94 | (3) |
|
|
|
|
97 | (2) |
|
|
97 | (1) |
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
16 Identifying and Quantifying Heterogeneity |
|
|
99 | (20) |
|
|
99 | (1) |
|
Isolating the variation in true effects |
|
|
99 | (2) |
|
|
101 | (5) |
|
|
106 | (3) |
|
|
109 | (2) |
|
Comparing the measures of heterogeneity |
|
|
111 | (3) |
|
Confidence intervals for τ2 |
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
Confidence intervals (or uncertainty intervals) for I2 |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
|
116 | (3) |
|
|
119 | (8) |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
Prediction intervals in primary studies |
|
|
119 | (2) |
|
Prediction intervals in meta-analysis |
|
|
121 | (2) |
|
Confidence intervals and prediction intervals |
|
|
123 | (1) |
|
Comparing the confidence interval with the prediction interval |
|
|
123 | (2) |
|
|
125 | (2) |
|
18 Worked Examples (Part 2) |
|
|
127 | (12) |
|
|
127 | (1) |
|
Worked example for continuous data (Part 2) |
|
|
127 | (4) |
|
Worked example for binary data (Part 2) |
|
|
131 | (3) |
|
Worked example for correlational data (Part 2) |
|
|
134 | (4) |
|
|
138 | (1) |
|
19 An Intuitive Look At Heterogeneity |
|
|
139 | (16) |
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
|
140 | (1) |
|
The Q-value and the p-value do not tell us how much the effect size varies |
|
|
141 | (1) |
|
The confidence interval does not tell us how much the effect size varies |
|
|
142 | (1) |
|
The I2 statistic does not tell us how much the effect size varies |
|
|
142 | (1) |
|
|
142 | (3) |
|
The I2 index vs. the prediction interval |
|
|
145 | (1) |
|
|
145 | (2) |
|
Prediction interval is clear, concise, and relevant |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
Computing the prediction interval |
|
|
147 | (2) |
|
|
149 | (1) |
|
How to explain heterogeneity |
|
|
149 | (1) |
|
How much does the effect size vary across studies? |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
The meaning of I2 in Figure 19.2 |
|
|
151 | (4) |
|
20 Classifying Heterogeneity As Low, Moderate, Or High |
|
|
155 | (6) |
|
|
155 | (1) |
|
Interest should generally focus on an index of absolute heterogeneity |
|
|
155 | (3) |
|
The classifications lead themselves to mistakes of interpretation |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
Classifications focus attention in the wrong direction |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
|
158 | (3) |
|
PART 5 EXPLAINING HETEROGENEITY |
|
|
|
|
161 | (36) |
|
|
161 | (2) |
|
Fixed-effect model within subgroups |
|
|
163 | (9) |
|
|
172 | (2) |
|
Random effects with separate estimates of τ2 |
|
|
174 | (7) |
|
Random effects with pooled estimate of τ2 |
|
|
181 | (8) |
|
The proportion of variance explained |
|
|
189 | (3) |
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
Obtaining an overall effect in the presence of subgroups |
|
|
193 | (2) |
|
|
195 | (2) |
|
|
197 | (16) |
|
|
197 | (1) |
|
|
198 | (5) |
|
Fixed or random effects for unexplained heterogeneity |
|
|
203 | (3) |
|
|
206 | (6) |
|
|
212 | (1) |
|
23 Notes On Subgroup Analyses And Meta-Regression |
|
|
213 | (10) |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
|
213 | (3) |
|
|
216 | (1) |
|
|
216 | (1) |
|
Analyses of subgroups and regression analyses are observational |
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
Statistical power for subgroup analyses and meta-regression |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
|
219 | (4) |
|
PART 6 PUTTING IT ALL IN CONTEXT |
|
|
|
24 Looking At The Whole Picture |
|
|
223 | (10) |
|
|
223 | (3) |
|
Methylphenidate for adults with ADHD |
|
|
226 | (2) |
|
Impact of GLP-1 mimetics on blood pressure |
|
|
228 | (1) |
|
Augmenting clozapine with a second antipsychotic |
|
|
228 | (3) |
|
|
231 | (1) |
|
|
231 | (1) |
|
|
232 | (1) |
|
25 Limitations Of The Random-Effects Model |
|
|
233 | (10) |
|
|
233 | (1) |
|
Assumptions of the random-effects model |
|
|
234 | (1) |
|
|
234 | (1) |
|
When studies are pulled from the literature |
|
|
235 | (2) |
|
|
237 | (1) |
|
|
238 | (1) |
|
A narrowly defined universe |
|
|
238 | (1) |
|
|
239 | (1) |
|
|
239 | (1) |
|
|
240 | (1) |
|
|
241 | (2) |
|
26 Knapp-Hartung Adjustment |
|
|
243 | (10) |
|
|
243 | (1) |
|
Adjustment is rarely employed in simple analyses |
|
|
243 | (1) |
|
Adjusting the standard error |
|
|
244 | (2) |
|
The Knapp--Hartung adjustment for other effect size indices |
|
|
246 | (1) |
|
t distribution vs. Z distribution |
|
|
247 | (1) |
|
Limitations of the Knapp--Hartung adjustment |
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
|
249 | (4) |
|
PART 7 COMPLEX DATA STRUCTURES |
|
|
|
|
253 | (2) |
|
28 Independent Subgroups Within A Study |
|
|
255 | (8) |
|
|
255 | (1) |
|
Combining across subgroups |
|
|
255 | (5) |
|
|
260 | (1) |
|
|
260 | (3) |
|
29 Multiple Outcomes Or Time-Points Within A Study |
|
|
263 | (14) |
|
|
263 | (1) |
|
Combining across outcomes or time-points |
|
|
264 | (6) |
|
Comparing outcomes or time-points within a study |
|
|
270 | (5) |
|
|
275 | (2) |
|
30 Multiple Comparisons Within A Study |
|
|
277 | (4) |
|
|
277 | (1) |
|
Combining across multiple comparisons within a study |
|
|
277 | (1) |
|
Differences between treatments |
|
|
278 | (1) |
|
|
279 | (2) |
|
31 Notes On Complex Data Structures |
|
|
281 | (6) |
|
|
281 | (1) |
|
|
281 | (1) |
|
|
282 | (5) |
|
|
|
|
287 | (2) |
|
33 Vote Counting -- A New Name For An Old Problem |
|
|
289 | (6) |
|
|
289 | (1) |
|
Why vote counting is wrong |
|
|
290 | (1) |
|
Vote counting is a pervasive problem |
|
|
291 | (2) |
|
|
293 | (2) |
|
34 Power Analysis For Meta-Analysis |
|
|
295 | (18) |
|
|
295 | (1) |
|
|
295 | (4) |
|
|
299 | (1) |
|
When to use power analysis |
|
|
300 | (1) |
|
Planning for precision rather than for power |
|
|
301 | (1) |
|
Power analysis in primary studies |
|
|
301 | (3) |
|
Power analysis for meta-analysis |
|
|
304 | (5) |
|
Power analysis for a test of homogeneity |
|
|
309 | (3) |
|
|
312 | (1) |
|
|
313 | (22) |
|
|
313 | (1) |
|
The problem of missing studies |
|
|
314 | (2) |
|
Methods for addressing bias |
|
|
316 | (1) |
|
|
317 | (1) |
|
|
317 | (1) |
|
Getting a sense of the data |
|
|
318 | (2) |
|
Is there evidence of any bias? |
|
|
320 | (1) |
|
How much of an impact might the bias have? |
|
|
320 | (4) |
|
Summary of the findings for the illustrative example |
|
|
324 | (1) |
|
Conflating bias with the small-study effect |
|
|
325 | (1) |
|
Using logic to disentangle bias from small-study effects |
|
|
326 | (1) |
|
These methods do not give us the `correct' effect size |
|
|
327 | (1) |
|
|
327 | (1) |
|
Procedures do not apply to studies of prevalence |
|
|
328 | (1) |
|
The model for publication bias is simplistic |
|
|
328 | (1) |
|
|
329 | (1) |
|
|
330 | (1) |
|
|
330 | (5) |
|
PART 9 ISSUES RELATED TO EFFECT SIZE |
|
|
|
|
335 | (2) |
|
37 Effect Sizes Rather Than p-Values |
|
|
337 | (6) |
|
|
337 | (1) |
|
Relationship between p-values and effect sizes |
|
|
337 | (2) |
|
The distinction is important |
|
|
339 | (1) |
|
The p-value is often misinterpreted |
|
|
340 | (1) |
|
Narrative reviews vs. meta-analyses |
|
|
341 | (1) |
|
|
342 | (1) |
|
|
343 | (6) |
|
|
343 | (1) |
|
Circumcision and risk of HIV infection |
|
|
343 | (2) |
|
An example of the paradox |
|
|
345 | (3) |
|
|
348 | (1) |
|
39 Generality of the Basic Inverse-Variance Method |
|
|
349 | (12) |
|
|
349 | (1) |
|
|
350 | (3) |
|
Other methods for estimating effect sizes |
|
|
353 | (1) |
|
Individual participant data meta-analyses |
|
|
354 | (1) |
|
|
355 | (2) |
|
|
357 | (4) |
|
|
|
|
361 | (2) |
|
41 Meta-Analysis Methods Based On Direction and p-Values |
|
|
363 | (6) |
|
|
363 | (1) |
|
|
363 | (1) |
|
|
363 | (1) |
|
|
364 | (4) |
|
|
368 | (1) |
|
42 Further Methods For Dichotomous Data |
|
|
369 | (8) |
|
|
369 | (1) |
|
|
369 | (4) |
|
One-step (Peto) formula for odds ratio |
|
|
373 | (3) |
|
|
376 | (1) |
|
43 Psychometric Meta-Analysis |
|
|
377 | (14) |
|
|
377 | (1) |
|
The attenuating effects of artifacts |
|
|
378 | (2) |
|
|
380 | (1) |
|
Example of psychometric meta-analysis |
|
|
381 | (3) |
|
Comparison of artifact correction with meta-regression |
|
|
384 | (1) |
|
Sources of information about artifact values |
|
|
384 | (1) |
|
How heterogeneity is assessed |
|
|
385 | (1) |
|
Reporting in psychometric meta-analysis |
|
|
386 | (1) |
|
|
386 | (1) |
|
|
387 | (4) |
|
PART 11 META-ANALYSIS IN CONTEXT |
|
|
|
|
391 | (2) |
|
45 When Does It Make Sense To Perform A Meta-Analysis? |
|
|
393 | (8) |
|
|
393 | (1) |
|
Are the studies similar enough to combine? |
|
|
394 | (1) |
|
Can I combine studies with different designs? |
|
|
395 | (4) |
|
How many studies are enough to carry out a meta-analysis? |
|
|
399 | (1) |
|
|
400 | (1) |
|
46 Reporting The Results Of A Meta-Analysis |
|
|
401 | (6) |
|
|
401 | (1) |
|
|
402 | (1) |
|
|
402 | (2) |
|
|
404 | (1) |
|
|
405 | (2) |
|
47 Cumulative Meta-Analysis |
|
|
407 | (6) |
|
|
407 | (2) |
|
Why perform a cumulative meta-analysis? |
|
|
409 | (3) |
|
|
412 | (1) |
|
48 Criticisms Of Meta-Analysis |
|
|
413 | (12) |
|
|
413 | (1) |
|
One number cannot summarize a research field |
|
|
414 | (1) |
|
The file drawer problem invalidates meta-analysis |
|
|
414 | (1) |
|
Mixing apples and oranges |
|
|
415 | (1) |
|
|
416 | (1) |
|
Important studies are ignored |
|
|
417 | (1) |
|
Meta-analysis can disagree with randomized trials |
|
|
417 | (3) |
|
Meta-analyses are performed poorly |
|
|
420 | (1) |
|
Is a narrative review better? |
|
|
420 | (2) |
|
|
422 | (1) |
|
|
422 | (3) |
|
49 Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software |
|
|
425 | (18) |
|
|
425 | (1) |
|
|
426 | (1) |
|
|
427 | (1) |
|
|
427 | (1) |
|
|
427 | (1) |
|
|
427 | (1) |
|
|
428 | (1) |
|
|
428 | (1) |
|
|
429 | (1) |
|
What is the average effect size? |
|
|
430 | (1) |
|
How much does the effect size vary? |
|
|
430 | (1) |
|
Plot showing distribution of effects |
|
|
431 | (1) |
|
|
432 | (1) |
|
|
433 | (2) |
|
|
435 | (3) |
|
|
438 | (1) |
|
|
439 | (4) |
|
50 How To Explain The Results Of An Analysis |
|
|
443 | (28) |
|
|
443 | (1) |
|
|
444 | (1) |
|
|
444 | (1) |
|
|
444 | (1) |
|
|
444 | (1) |
|
Impact of resistance exercise on pain |
|
|
445 | (5) |
|
Correlation between letter knowledge and word recognition |
|
|
450 | (5) |
|
Statins for prevention of cardiovascular events |
|
|
455 | (5) |
|
Bupropion for smoking cessation |
|
|
460 | (5) |
|
Mortality following mitral-valve procedures in elderly patients |
|
|
465 | (6) |
|
|
|
51 Software For Meta-Analysis |
|
|
471 | (2) |
|
Comprehensive meta-analysis |
|
|
471 | (1) |
|
|
471 | (1) |
|
|
472 | (1) |
|
|
472 | (1) |
|
52 Web Sites, Societies, Journals, And Books |
|
|
473 | (6) |
|
|
473 | (3) |
|
|
476 | (1) |
|
|
476 | (1) |
|
Special issues dedicated to meta-analysis |
|
|
477 | (1) |
|
Books on systematic review methods and meta-analysis |
|
|
477 | (2) |
References |
|
479 | (12) |
Index |
|
491 | |