TY - JOUR
T1 - Methods of estimating the pooled effect size under meta-analysis
T2 - A comparative appraisal
AU - Pathak, Mona
AU - Dwivedi, Sada Nand
AU - Thakur, Bhaskar
AU - Vishnubhatla, Sreenivas
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank the reviewers for their valuable comments which helped in strengthening the article. The authors thank All India Institute of Medical sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to make available the computer laboratory facility, library, online accessibility of articles and other resources.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 INDIACLEN
PY - 2020/3
Y1 - 2020/3
N2 - Introduction: Present study has compared methods of synthesizing the pooled effect estimate under meta-analysis, namely Fixed Effect Method (FEM), Random Effects Method (REM) and a recently proposed Weighted Least Square (WLS) method. Methods: Three methods of estimating pooled effect estimates under meta-analysis were compared on the basis of coverage probability and width of confidence interval. These methods were compared for seven outcomes with varying heterogeneity and sample size using real data of systematic review comparing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy involving ‘hazard ratio’ and ‘risk ratio’ as effect size. Results: WLS method was found to be superior to FEM having higher coverage probability in case of heterogeneity. Further, WLS with similar coverage probability was found to be superior to REM with more precise confidence interval. Conclusion: Unrestricted WLS method needs to be preferred unconditionally over fixed effect method and random effects method.
AB - Introduction: Present study has compared methods of synthesizing the pooled effect estimate under meta-analysis, namely Fixed Effect Method (FEM), Random Effects Method (REM) and a recently proposed Weighted Least Square (WLS) method. Methods: Three methods of estimating pooled effect estimates under meta-analysis were compared on the basis of coverage probability and width of confidence interval. These methods were compared for seven outcomes with varying heterogeneity and sample size using real data of systematic review comparing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy involving ‘hazard ratio’ and ‘risk ratio’ as effect size. Results: WLS method was found to be superior to FEM having higher coverage probability in case of heterogeneity. Further, WLS with similar coverage probability was found to be superior to REM with more precise confidence interval. Conclusion: Unrestricted WLS method needs to be preferred unconditionally over fixed effect method and random effects method.
KW - Coverage probability
KW - Fixed effect methods
KW - Precision
KW - Random effects method
KW - Weighted least square method
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065557798&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cegh.2019.05.004
DO - 10.1016/j.cegh.2019.05.004
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85065557798
SN - 2213-3984
VL - 8
SP - 105
EP - 112
JO - Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health
JF - Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health
IS - 1
ER -