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…

Network meta-analysis is a popular method to synthesize the information obtained in a systematic review of studies (e.g., randomized clinical trials) involving subsets of multiple treatments of interest. The dominant method of analysis employs within-study information on treatment contrasts and integrates this over a network of studies. One…

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…

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…