An Alternative Measure for Quantifying the Heterogeneity in Meta‐Analysis

Fuente: Wiley Open Access
Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ke Yang, Enxuan Lin, Wangli Xu, Liping Zhu, Tiejun Tong
Format: Artículo Open Access
Published: Wiley 2025
Subjects:
Online Access:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1867004912027566080
author Ke Yang
Enxuan Lin
Wangli Xu
Liping Zhu
Tiejun Tong
author_facet Ke Yang
Enxuan Lin
Wangli Xu
Liping Zhu
Tiejun Tong
Ke Yang
Enxuan Lin
Wangli Xu
Liping Zhu
Tiejun Tong
collection Wiley Open Access
contents An Alternative Measure for Quantifying the Heterogeneity in Meta‐Analysis Ke Yang Enxuan Lin Wangli Xu Liping Zhu Tiejun Tong Statistics in Medicine ABSTRACTQuantifying the heterogeneity is an important issue in meta‐analysis, and among the existing measures, the statistic is most commonly used. In this article, we first illustrate with a simple example that the statistic is heavily dependent on the study sample sizes, mainly because it is used to quantify the heterogeneity between the observed effect sizes. To reduce the influence of sample sizes, we introduce an alternative measure that aims to directly measure the heterogeneity between the study populations involved in the meta‐analysis. We further propose a new estimator, namely the statistic, to estimate the newly defined measure of heterogeneity. For practical implementation, the exact formulas of the statistic are also derived under two common scenarios with the effect size as the mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD). Simulations and real data analyses demonstrate that the statistic provides an asymptotically unbiased estimator for the absolute heterogeneity between the study populations, and it is also independent of the study sample sizes as expected. To conclude, our newly defined statistic can be used as a supplemental measure of heterogeneity to monitor the situations where the study effect sizes are indeed similar with little biological difference. In such scenario, the fixed‐effect model can be appropriate; nevertheless, when the sample sizes are sufficiently large, the statistic may still increase to 1 and subsequently suggest the random‐effects model for meta‐analysis. 10.1002/sim.70089 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
doi_str_mv 10.1002/sim.70089
format Artículo Open Access
id wiley_oa_10_1002_sim_70089
institution Wiley Open Access
license_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
publishDate 2025
publisher Wiley
record_format wiley_oa
spellingShingle An Alternative Measure for Quantifying the Heterogeneity in Meta‐Analysis
Ke Yang
Enxuan Lin
Wangli Xu
Liping Zhu
Tiejun Tong
Statistics in Medicine
An Alternative Measure for Quantifying the Heterogeneity in Meta‐Analysis Ke Yang Enxuan Lin Wangli Xu Liping Zhu Tiejun Tong Statistics in Medicine ABSTRACTQuantifying the heterogeneity is an important issue in meta‐analysis, and among the existing measures, the statistic is most commonly used. In this article, we first illustrate with a simple example that the statistic is heavily dependent on the study sample sizes, mainly because it is used to quantify the heterogeneity between the observed effect sizes. To reduce the influence of sample sizes, we introduce an alternative measure that aims to directly measure the heterogeneity between the study populations involved in the meta‐analysis. We further propose a new estimator, namely the statistic, to estimate the newly defined measure of heterogeneity. For practical implementation, the exact formulas of the statistic are also derived under two common scenarios with the effect size as the mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD). Simulations and real data analyses demonstrate that the statistic provides an asymptotically unbiased estimator for the absolute heterogeneity between the study populations, and it is also independent of the study sample sizes as expected. To conclude, our newly defined statistic can be used as a supplemental measure of heterogeneity to monitor the situations where the study effect sizes are indeed similar with little biological difference. In such scenario, the fixed‐effect model can be appropriate; nevertheless, when the sample sizes are sufficiently large, the statistic may still increase to 1 and subsequently suggest the random‐effects model for meta‐analysis. 10.1002/sim.70089 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
title An Alternative Measure for Quantifying the Heterogeneity in Meta‐Analysis
topic Statistics in Medicine
url https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.70089