Jackson Dan, Law Martin, Rücker Gerta, Schwarzer Guido
MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK.
University of Freiburg, Germany.
Stat Med. 2017 Nov 10;36(25):3923-3934. doi: 10.1002/sim.7411. Epub 2017 Jul 26.
The modified method for random-effects meta-analysis, usually attributed to Hartung and Knapp and also proposed by Sidik and Jonkman, is easy to implement and is becoming advocated for general use. Here, we examine a range of potential concerns about the widespread adoption of this method. Motivated by these issues, a variety of different conventions can be adopted when using the modified method in practice. We describe and investigate the use of a variety of these conventions using a new taxonomy of meta-analysis datasets. We conclude that the Hartung and Knapp modification may be a suitable replacement for the standard method. Despite this, analysts who advocate the modified method should be ready to defend its use against the possible objections to it that we present. We further recommend that the results from more conventional approaches should be used as sensitivity analyses when using the modified method. It has previously been suggested that a common-effect analysis should be used for this purpose but we suggest amending this recommendation and argue that a standard random-effects analysis should be used instead.
随机效应荟萃分析的改良方法通常归功于哈通和克纳普,西迪克和琼克曼也提出了该方法,它易于实施,正被提倡广泛使用。在此,我们审视了一系列关于该方法广泛采用的潜在问题。受这些问题的推动,在实际使用改良方法时可以采用多种不同的惯例。我们使用一种新的荟萃分析数据集分类法来描述和研究这些惯例的使用情况。我们得出结论,哈通和克纳普的改良方法可能是标准方法的合适替代方法。尽管如此,提倡使用改良方法的分析人员应准备好针对我们提出的可能反对意见为其使用进行辩护。我们还建议,在使用改良方法时,应将更传统方法的结果用作敏感性分析。此前有人建议为此目的使用固定效应分析,但我们建议修改这一建议,并主张应使用标准随机效应分析取而代之。