LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Walwyn, R; Roberts, C (2017)
Publisher: Wiley
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
In meta-analyses, where a continuous outcome is measured with different scales or standards, the summary statistic is the mean difference standardised to a common metric with a common variance. Where trial treatment is delivered by a person, nesting of patients within care providers leads to clustering that may interact with, or be limited to, one or more of the arms. Assuming a common standardising variance is less tenable and options for scaling the mean difference become numerous. Metrics suggested for cluster-randomised trials are within, between and total variances and for unequal variances, the control arm or pooled variances. We consider summary measures and individual-patient-data methods for meta-analysing standardised mean differences from trials with two-level nested clustering, relaxing independence and common variance assumptions, allowing sample sizes to differ across arms. A general metric is proposed with comparable interpretation across designs. The relationship between the method of standardisation and choice of model is explored, allowing for bias in the estimator and imprecision in the standardising metric. A meta-analysis of trials of counselling in primary care motivated this work. Assuming equal clustering effects across trials, the proposed random-effects meta-analysis model gave a pooled standardised mean difference of −0.27 (95% CI −0.45 to −0.08) using summary measures and −0.26 (95% CI −0.45 to −0.09) with the individual-patient-data. While treatment-related clustering has rarely been taken into account in trials, it is now recommended that it is considered in trials and meta-analyses. This paper contributes to the uptake of this guidance.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Egger, G. Davey-Smith, and D.G. Altman, Editors. 2001, BMJ Books: London. p. 285 312.
    • Glass, G.V., Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 1976. 5: p. 3-8.
    • Zigmond, A.S. and R.P. Snaith, The hospital anxiety and depression scale Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 1983. 67(6): p. 361 370.
    • Kroenke, K., R.L. Spitzer, and J.B.W. Williams, The PHQ-9: Validity of a Brief Depression Severity Measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2001. 16(9): p. 606 613.
    • Beck, A.T., et al., An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1961. 4(6): p. 561-571.
    • Hedges, L.V., Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 1982. 92(2): p. 490-499.
    • Physical Review, 1932. 16: p. 1 32.
    • Cochran, W.G., Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1937. 4(Supplement): p.
    • DerSimonian, R. and N.M. Laird, Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986. 7: p. 177 188.
    • Sidik, K. and J.N. Jonkman, Robust variance estimation for random effects meta-analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 2006. 50: p. 3681 3701.
    • Satterthwaite, F.E., An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 1946. 2(6): p. 110-114.
    • Box, G.E.P., Some theorems on quadratic forms applied to the study of analysis of variance problems, I. Effect of inequality of variance in the oneway classification. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1954. 25: p. 290-302.
    • American Journal of Epidemiology, 1986. 123(2): p. 203-208.
    • Goldstein, H., Multilevel Statistical Models. 3rd Edition ed. 2003, London: Arnold.
    • Wang, C.S., B.S. Yandell, and J.J. Rutledge, The dilemma of negative analysis of variance estimators of intraclass correlation. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 1992. 85: p. 79 88.
    • Walwyn, R., Therapist variation within meta-analyses of psychotherapy trials 2010, University of Manchester: Manchester, UK.
    • Boutron, I., et al., Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Annals of internal medicine, 2008. 148(4): p. 295-309.
    • Higgins, J.P.T. and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] , 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration.
    • Bohning, D., et al., Some general points in estimating heterogeneity variance with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. Biostatistics, 2002. 3(4): p. 445 457.
    • Viechtbauer, W., Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 2005. 30: p. 261 293.
    • Roberts, C. and R. Walwyn, Design and analysis of non-pharmacological treatment trials with multiple therapists per patient. Statistics in Medicine, 2013. 32: p. 81 98.
    • Jones, A.P., et al., Meta-analysis of individual patient data versus aggregate data from longitudinal clinical trials. Clinical Trials, 2009. 6: p. 16 27.
    • Trikalinos, T.A. and I. Olkin, Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: A multivariate approach. Clinical Trials, 2012. 9: p. 610 620.
    • Baldwin, S.A., et al., Intraclass correlation associated with therapists: Estimates and applications in planning psychotherapy research. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 2011. 4(1): p. 15 33.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article