Welcome to the upgraded MacSphere! We're putting the finishing touches on it; if you notice anything amiss, email macsphere@mcmaster.ca

Contributions to estimation and interpretation of intervention effects and heterogeneity in meta-analysis

dc.contributor.advisorThabane, Lehanaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorDevereaux, Philip Jamesen_US
dc.contributor.advisorGuyatt, Gordonen_US
dc.contributor.authorThorlund, Kristianen_US
dc.contributor.departmentHealth Research Methodologyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-18T16:54:40Z
dc.date.available2014-06-18T16:54:40Z
dc.date.created2011-10-19en_US
dc.date.issued2011-10en_US
dc.description.abstract<p><strong><em>Background and objectives</em></strong><strong> </strong></p> <p>Despite great statistical advances in meta-analysis methodology, most published meta-analyses make use of out-dated statistical methods and authors are unaware of the shortcomings associated with the widely employed methods. There is a need for statistical contributions to meta-analysis where: 1) improvements to current statistical practice in meta-analysis are conveyed at the level that most systematic review authors will be able to understand; and where: 2) current statistical methods that are widely applied in meta-analytic practice undergo thorough testing and examination. The objective of this thesis is to address some of this demand.</p> <p><strong><em>Methods</em></strong></p> <p>Four studies were conducted that would each meet one or both of the objectives. Simulation was used to explore the number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects to ‘acceptable’ levels. Empirical assessment was used to explore the performance of the popular measure of heterogeneity, <em>I<sup>2</sup></em>, and its associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as evidence accumulates. Empirical assessment was also used to compare inferential agreement between the widely used DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and four alternative models. Lastly, a narrative review was undertaken to identify and appraise available methods for combining health related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes.</p> <p><strong><em>Results and conclusion</em></strong></p> <p>The information required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects is typically close to what is known as the optimal information size (OIS, i.e., the required meta-analysis sample size). <em>I<sup>2</sup> </em>estimates fluctuate considerably in meta-analyses with less than 15 trials and 500 events; their 95% confidence intervals provide desired coverage. The choice of random-effects has ignorable impact on the inferences about the intervention effect, but not on inferences about the degree of heterogeneity. Many approaches are available for pooling HRQL outcomes. Recommendations are provided to enhance interpretability. Overall, each manuscript met at least one thesis objective.</p>en_US
dc.description.degreeDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)en_US
dc.identifier.otheropendissertations/6413en_US
dc.identifier.other7454en_US
dc.identifier.other2303275en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11375/11447
dc.subjectmeta-analysisen_US
dc.subjectheterogeneityen_US
dc.subjectprecisionen_US
dc.subjectestimationen_US
dc.subjectApplied Statisticsen_US
dc.subjectClinical Epidemiologyen_US
dc.subjectStatistical Methodologyen_US
dc.subjectApplied Statisticsen_US
dc.titleContributions to estimation and interpretation of intervention effects and heterogeneity in meta-analysisen_US
dc.typethesisen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
fulltext.pdf
Size:
1.97 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format