Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation

Levente Kriston

doi:10.1002/mpr.1377

Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation

Standard

Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation. / Kriston, Levente.

in: INT J METH PSYCH RES, Jahrgang 22, Nr. 1, 01.03.2013, S. 1-15.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Kriston, L 2013, 'Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation', INT J METH PSYCH RES, Jg. 22, Nr. 1, S. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1377

APA

Kriston, L. (2013). Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation. INT J METH PSYCH RES, 22(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1377

Vancouver

Kriston L. Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation. INT J METH PSYCH RES. 2013 Mär 1;22(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1377

Bibtex

@article{d8ea1f80a68e43d5bdd06ad92f43736a,

title = "Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: There is an ongoing debate how to interpret findings of meta-analyses when substantial clinical heterogeneity is present among included trials. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate various ways of dealing with clinical heterogeneity along with underlying assumptions and interpretation. A recent meta-analysis on long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (LTPP) was used as an illustrative example.METHOD: Re-analysis of published data including calculation of a prediction interval, heterogeneity tests, Bayesian meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis to explore and interpret summary estimates in clinically heterogeneous studies.RESULTS: Meta-analytic results and their implications varied considerably depending on whether and how clinical heterogeneity was addressed.CONCLUSIONS: Whether or not to trust summary estimates in meta-analysis depends largely on the subjective relevance of clinical heterogeneity present. No single analysis and interpretation strategy can be valid in every context or paradigm, thus, reflection of own beliefs on the role of heterogeneity is needed.",

keywords = "Bayes Theorem, Clinical Trials as Topic, Decision Making, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Psychotherapy, Research Design, Statistics as Topic",

author = "Levente Kriston",

note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",

year = "2013",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1002/mpr.1377",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

pages = "1--15",

journal = "INT J METH PSYCH RES",

issn = "1049-8931",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation

AU - Kriston, Levente

PY - 2013/3/1

Y1 - 2013/3/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: There is an ongoing debate how to interpret findings of meta-analyses when substantial clinical heterogeneity is present among included trials. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate various ways of dealing with clinical heterogeneity along with underlying assumptions and interpretation. A recent meta-analysis on long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (LTPP) was used as an illustrative example.METHOD: Re-analysis of published data including calculation of a prediction interval, heterogeneity tests, Bayesian meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis to explore and interpret summary estimates in clinically heterogeneous studies.RESULTS: Meta-analytic results and their implications varied considerably depending on whether and how clinical heterogeneity was addressed.CONCLUSIONS: Whether or not to trust summary estimates in meta-analysis depends largely on the subjective relevance of clinical heterogeneity present. No single analysis and interpretation strategy can be valid in every context or paradigm, thus, reflection of own beliefs on the role of heterogeneity is needed.

AB - OBJECTIVE: There is an ongoing debate how to interpret findings of meta-analyses when substantial clinical heterogeneity is present among included trials. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate various ways of dealing with clinical heterogeneity along with underlying assumptions and interpretation. A recent meta-analysis on long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (LTPP) was used as an illustrative example.METHOD: Re-analysis of published data including calculation of a prediction interval, heterogeneity tests, Bayesian meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis to explore and interpret summary estimates in clinically heterogeneous studies.RESULTS: Meta-analytic results and their implications varied considerably depending on whether and how clinical heterogeneity was addressed.CONCLUSIONS: Whether or not to trust summary estimates in meta-analysis depends largely on the subjective relevance of clinical heterogeneity present. No single analysis and interpretation strategy can be valid in every context or paradigm, thus, reflection of own beliefs on the role of heterogeneity is needed.

KW - Bayes Theorem

KW - Clinical Trials as Topic

KW - Decision Making

KW - Humans

KW - Meta-Analysis as Topic

KW - Psychotherapy

KW - Research Design

KW - Statistics as Topic

U2 - 10.1002/mpr.1377

DO - 10.1002/mpr.1377

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 23494781

VL - 22

SP - 1

EP - 15

JO - INT J METH PSYCH RES

JF - INT J METH PSYCH RES

SN - 1049-8931

IS - 1

ER -