期刊文献+

选择QE或RE模型:一种带偏倚校正功能的加权方式在Meta分析中的应用 被引量:2

QE or RE?A Bias Adjusted Weighting Procedure for Meta-analysis
原文传递
导出
摘要 Meta分析中一个较重要的问题是偏倚,它也是导致异质性的原因。当研究存在异质性时,传统Meta分析通常使用基于倒方差法的随机效应模型对结果进行合并。尽管随机效应模型使用基于瞬时估算的量r^2表示研究真实值间偏离程度,以此获得更"保守"的合并结果。然而这种方式并未对偏倚对每项研究结果的影响进行考虑,且存在低估标准误的风险,导致合并结果同样存在偏倚。Doi等提出一种新的加权模型,QE法,能够很好地解决上述问题。本文对QE加权模型及其软件的实现进行详细介绍,并将QE加权模型法与随机效应模型结果以一示例进行对比。 One important problem in meta-analysis is heterogeneity, the result of bias. When inconsistency occurs, traditional work in meta-analysis is employing a random effect model based on inverse variance method to combine the results. Such a method used the moment-based estimator T2 measuring the deviation from true value across studies to obtain a conservative result. It however failed to estimate the influence on each study due to bias and this method may at risk of underestimate the standard error which then may leads to biased summarized estimator. Accordingly, Doi proposed a new weighting procedure, QE method, hopefully be a good solution. In this article, we will introduce the QE method with details on the methodology and software, and then make a comparison between QE and random effect model of the results.
出处 《中国循证医学杂志》 CSCD 2016年第5期612-616,共5页 Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine
基金 国家自然科学基金(编号:30972975) 湖北省教育厅重点项目(编号:D20142102)
关键词 QE加权模型 随机效应模型 META分析 偏倚校正 Quality Effect Random effect model Meta-analysis Bias
  • 相关文献

参考文献12

  • 1Cochrane Collaboration. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbookfor Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [UpdatedMarch 2011]. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
  • 2Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ’ Smith GC, et al. Bias modelling inevidence synthesis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,Statistics in Society, 2009,172(1): 21-47.
  • 3Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistencyin meta-analyses. BMJ, 2003, 327(7414): 557-560.
  • 4Doi SA, Thalib L. A quality-effects model for meta-analysis.Epidemiology,2008,19(1): 94-100.
  • 5Al Khalaf MM, Thalib L, Doi SA. Combining heterogenousstudies using the random-effects model is a mistake and leads toinconclusive meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2011,64(2): 119-123.
  • 6Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Onitilo AA. Methods for the bias adjustmentof meta-analyses of published observational studies. J Eval ClinPract, 2013,19(4): 653-657.
  • 7Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A comparison of statistical methods formeta-analysis. Stat Med, 2001,20(6): 825-840.
  • 8Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, et al Advances in the meta-analysisof heterogeneous clinical trials II: The quality effects model.Contemp Clin Trials, 2015,45(Pt A): 123-129.
  • 9Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, et al. Simulation Comparison ofthe Quality Effects and Random Effects Methods of Meta-analysis.Epidemiology, 2015, 26(4): e42-44.
  • 10Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, et al. Advances in the Meta-analysisof heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneitymodel. Contemp Clin Trials, 2015, 45(Pt A): 130-138.

同被引文献8

引证文献2

二级引证文献16

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部