Meta-analysis of proportions is conceptually simple: Faced with a binary outcome in multiple studies, we seek inference on some overall proportion of successes/failures. Under common effect models, exact inference has long been available, but is not when we more realistically allow for heterogeneity of the proportions. Instead a wide range of…

Meta-regression analyses usually focus on estimating and testing differences in average effect sizes between individual levels of each meta-regression covariate in turn. These metrics are useful but have limitations: they consider each covariate individually, rather than in combination, and they characterize only the mean of a potentially…

Tolerance intervals provide a bracket intended to contain a percentage (e.g., 80%) of a population distribution given sample estimates of the mean and variance. In random-effects meta-analysis, tolerance intervals should contain researcher-specified proportions of underlying population effect sizes. Using Monte Carlo simulation, we investigated…

Bayesian methods seem a natural choice for combining sources of evidence in meta-analyses. However, in practice, their sensitivity to the choice of prior distribution is much less attractive, particularly for parameters describing heterogeneity. A recent non-Bayesian approach to fixed-effects meta-analysis provides novel ways to think about…

Researchers often seek to synthesize results of multiple studies on the same topic to draw statistical or substantive conclusions and to estimate effect sizes that will inform power analyses for future research. The most popular synthesis approach is meta-analysis. There have been few discussions and applications of other synthesis approaches.…

There exists a variety of interval estimators for the overall treatment effect in a random-effects meta-analysis. A recent literature review summarizing existing methods suggested that in most situations, the Hartung-Knapp/Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method was preferable. However, a quantitative comparison of those methods in a common simulation study…

It is now widely accepted that the standard inferential toolkit used by the scientific research community--null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST)--is not fit for purpose. Yet despite the threat posed to the scientific enterprise, there is no agreement concerning alternative approaches for evidence assessment. This lack of consensus reflects…

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is gaining popularity for comparing multiple treatments in a single analysis. Generalized linear mixed models provide a unifying framework for NMA, allow us to analyze datasets with dichotomous, continuous or count endpoints, and take into account multiarm trials, potential heterogeneity between trials and network…

When performing a meta-analysis unexplained variation above that predicted by within study variation is usually modeled by a random effect. However, in some cases, this is not sufficient to explain all the variation because of outlier or unusual studies. A previously described method is to define an outlier as a study requiring a higher random…

Statistical inference is problematic in the common situation in meta-analysis where the random effects model is fitted to just a handful of studies. In particular, the asymptotic theory of maximum likelihood provides a poor approximation, and Bayesian methods are sensitive to the prior specification. Hence, less efficient, but easily computed and…

Researchers may have multiple motivations for combining disparate pieces of evidence in a meta-analysis, such as generalizing experimental results or increasing the power to detect an effect that a single study is not able to detect. However, while in meta-analysis, the main question may be simple, the structure of evidence available to answer it…