Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.

In this paper, we revisit a 1986 article we published in this Journal, Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials, where we introduced a random-effects model to summarize the evidence about treatment efficacy from a number of related clinical trials. Because of its simplicity and ease of implementation, our approach has been widely used (with more than 12,000 citations to date) and the "DerSimonian and Laird method" is now often referred to as the 'standard approach' or a 'popular' method for meta-analysis in medical and clinical research. The method is especially useful for providing an overall effect estimate and for characterizing the heterogeneity of effects across a series of studies. Here, we review the background that led to the original 1986 article, briefly describe the random-effects approach for meta-analysis, explore its use in various settings and trends over time and recommend a refinement to the method using a robust variance estimator for testing overall effect. We conclude with a discussion of repurposing the method for Big Data meta-analysis and Genome Wide Association Studies for studying the importance of genetic variants in complex diseases.

[1]  F Mosteller,et al.  Some Statistical Methods for Combining Experimental Results , 1990, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[2]  Elena Kulinskaya,et al.  Testing for Homogeneity in Meta‐Analysis I. The One‐Parameter Case: Standardized Mean Difference , 2009, Biometrics.

[3]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies , 1978, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[4]  J. Hartung,et al.  A refined method for the meta‐analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  Josée Dupuis,et al.  A Method of Moments Estimator for Random Effect Multivariate Meta‐Analysis , 2012, Biometrics.

[7]  Dan Jackson,et al.  The exact distribution of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic in one‐way random effects meta‐analysis , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Kurex Sidik,et al.  A Note on Variance Estimation in Random Effects Meta-Regression , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[9]  Raghu Kacker,et al.  Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. , 2007, Contemporary clinical trials.

[10]  Jack Bowden,et al.  How does the DerSimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts? , 2010 .

[11]  Evangelos Kontopantelis,et al.  Performance of statistical methods for meta-analysis when true study effects are non-normally distributed: A comparison between DerSimonian–Laird and restricted maximum likelihood , 2012, Statistical methods in medical research.

[12]  Elena Kulinskaya,et al.  On the moments of Cochran's Q statistic under the null hypothesis, with application to the meta‐analysis of risk difference , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[13]  D Y Lin,et al.  Meta‐analysis of genome‐wide association studies: no efficiency gain in using individual participant data , 2009, Genetic epidemiology.

[14]  Nan M. Laird,et al.  Evaluating the Effect of Coaching on SAT Scores: A Meta-Analysis , 1983 .

[15]  W. G. Cochran.  The combination of estimates from different experiments. , 1954 .

[16]  C S Berkey,et al.  A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  Richard D Riley,et al.  A matrix-based method of moments for fitting the multivariate random effects model for meta-analysis and meta-regression , 2013, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[19]  S. Thompson,et al.  How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  R. Elmore.  Getting to Scale with Good Educational Practice , 1996 .

[21]  George F Borm,et al.  The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[22]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades , 1997 .

[23]  Dan Jackson,et al.  Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta‐analyses , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Sustained Inquiry in Education: Lessons from Skill Grouping and Class Size , 1996 .

[25]  F. Hu,et al.  A Common Genetic Variant Is Associated with Adult and Childhood Obesity , 2006, Science.

[26]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Methods for calculating confidence and credible intervals for the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[27]  G. Glass.  Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research1 , 1976 .

[28]  Evangelos Kontopantelis,et al.  Performance of statistical methods for meta-analysis when true study effects are non-normally distributed: A simulation study , 2012, Statistical methods in medical research.

[29]  Warner V. Slack,et al.  The Scholastic Aptitude Test: A Critical Appraisal , 1980 .

[30]  Dan Jackson,et al.  Confidence intervals for the between‐study variance in random effects meta‐analysis using generalised Cochran heterogeneity statistics , 2013, Research synthesis methods.

[31]  Eleazar Eskin,et al.  Random-effects model aimed at discovering associations in meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. , 2011, American journal of human genetics.

[32]  F. Kronenberg,et al.  Meta-Analysis of the INSIG2 Association with Obesity Including 74,345 Individuals: Does Heterogeneity of Estimates Relate to Study Design? , 2009, PLoS genetics.