Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T20:15:22.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Statistical Methods for Combining Experimental Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Nan M. Laird  and
Frederick Mosteller
Nan M. Laird
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Frederick Mosteller
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Advances in science and technology are generally the product of multiple investigations. This article discusses statistical methods for combining empirical results from a series of different experiments or clinical investigations. We delineate the steps an assessor might take in combining data from different studies and provide references for topics not discussed in detail. The article reviews some of the most commonly used statistical techniques for combining results in the medical and social sciences.

The expression meta-analysis refers to the practice of using statistical methods to combine the outcomes of a series of different experiments or investigations. The terminology arises because a meta-analysis uses a study as the unit of observation, and, thus, the data point for each study is itself a statistical summary based on an analysis of primary data.

Type
Special Section: Alternative Methods for Assessing Technology, Part II
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 5 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antczak, A., Tang, J., & Chalmers, T. C.Quality assessment of randomized control trials in dental research. I: Methods. Journal of Periodontal Research, 1986, 21, 305–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bangert-Drowns, R. L.Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psychological Bulletin, 1986, 99, 388–99.Google Scholar
Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A.Publication bias: A problem in interpreting medical data with discussion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 151, 1988, 419–63.Google Scholar
Bozivich, H., Bancroft, T. A., & Hartley, H. O.Power of analysis of variance test procedures for certain incompletely specified models. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1956, 27, 1017–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breslow, N. E., and Day, N. E.Statistical methods in cancer research. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 1980.Google ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H. Jr, Blackburn, B., et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1981, 2, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochran, W. G.Some methods for strengthening the common x2 test. Biometrics, 1954, 10, 417–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G.The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 1954, 10, 101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colditz, G. A., Miller, J. N., & Mosteller, F.The effect of study design on gain in evaluations of new treatments in medicine and surgery. Drug Information Journal, 1988, 22, 343–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colditz, G. A., Miller, J. N., & Mosteller, F.How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Statistics in Medicine, 1989, 8, 441–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colditz, G. A., Miller, J. N., & Mosteller, F.Measuring gain in the evaluation of medical technology: The probability of a better outcome. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 637–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, H. M.The integrative research review: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984.Google Scholar
Cornfield, J., & Tukey, J. W.Average values of mean squares in factorials. Annals of Mat hematical Statistics, 1956, 27, 907–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DerSimonian, R., Charette, L. J., McPeek, B., & Mosteller, F.Reporting on methods in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 306, 1332–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. M.Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1986, 7, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickersin, K., Hewitt, P., Mutch, L. et al. Perusing the literature: Comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials database. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1985, 6, 306–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerson, J. D., McPeek, B., & Mosteller, F.Reporting clinical trials in general surgical jourals. Surgery, 1984, 95, 572–9.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L.Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Second edition. New York: Wiley, 1981.Google Scholar
Freiman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H. Jr, & Keubler, R. R.The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial; survey of 71 “negative” trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1978, 299, 690–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, J. P., McPeek, B., & Mosteller, F. Progress in surgery and anesthesia: Benefits and risks of innovative therapy. In Bunker, J. P., Barnes, B. A., & Mosteller, F. (eds.), Costs, risks and benefits of surgery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 124–69.Google Scholar
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., and Smith, M. L.Mela-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.Google Scholar
Goldman, L., & Feinstein, A. R.Anticoagulants and myocardial infarction. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1979, 90, 92–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, B. F., & Tukey, J. W.Complex analyses of variance: general problems. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 127–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, S.Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiologic Reviews, 1987, 9, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., Fitzgerald, D. et al. How to keep up with the medical literature: V: Access by personal computer to the medical literature. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1986, 105, 810–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedges, L. V. Advances in statistical methods for meta-analysis. In Yeaton, W. H. & Wortman, P. M. (eds.), Issues in data synthesis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1984, 25–42.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., Estimation of effect size under nonrandom sampling: The effects of censoring studies yielding statistically insignificant mean differences. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1984a, 9, 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I.Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Hewitt, P. Access to the medical literature. In Chalmers, T. C. (ed.), Data analysis for clinical medicine. Rome: University Publishing, 1988, 91–100.Google Scholar
Hewitt, P., & Chalmers, T. C.Using MEDLINE to peruse the literature. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1985, 6, 75–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, P., & Chalmers, T. C.Using MEDLINE for purusing the literature: Software and search interface of interest to the medical professional. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1985, 6, 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, P., & Chalmers, T. C.Perusing the literature. Methods of accessing MEDLINE and related databases. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1985, 6, 168–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyengar, S., & Greenhouse, J. B.Selection models and the file-drawer problem. Statistical Science, 3, 109–11.Google Scholar
Liberati, A., Himel, H. N., & Chalmers, T. C., A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1986, 4, 942–51.Google ScholarPubMed
Light, R. J. (ed.) Evaluation studies, review annual, vol 8, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983.Google Scholar
Light, R., & Pillemer, D. B.The science of summing up. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louis, T. A., Fineberg, H. V., & Mosteller, F., Findings for public health from meta-analyses. Annual Review of Public Health, 1985, 6, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W.Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1959, 22, 719–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. N., Colditz, G. A., & Mosteller, F.How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Statistics in Medicine, 1989, 8, 455–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moses, L. E., Emerson, J. D., & Hosseini, H. Analyzing data from ordered categories. In Bailar, J. C. III and Mosteller, F. (eds.) Medical uses of statistics, Waltham, MA: NEJM Books. 1986, 235–58.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F., & Rourke, R. E. K.Sturdy statistics: Nonparametric and order statistics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, Co., 1973.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W.Combination of results of stated precision: I. The optimistic case. Utilitas Mathematics, 1982, 21A, 155–78.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. Combination of results of stated precision: II. A more realistic case. In Rao, P. R. S. & Sedransk, J. (eds.), W G. Cochran's Impact on Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984, 223–52.Google Scholar
Paull, A. E.On a preliminary test for pooling mean squares in the analysis of variance. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1950, 21, 539–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, J., Breslow, N., & Greenland, S.Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large strata-limiting models. Biometrics, 1986, 42, 311–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, R.The “file drawer” problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 638–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R.Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B.Comments on selection models and the file drawer problem: Assumptions and procedures. Statistical Science, 3, 120–25.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. S., Berrier, M. A., Reitman, D. et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 316, 450–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. S., Chalmers, T. C., & Smith, H. Jr. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. American Journal of Medicine, 1982, 72, 233–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simes, R. J.Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 1987, 6, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M. L.Publication bias and meta-analysis. Evaluation in Education, 1980, 4, 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics in Medicine, 1987, 6, no. 3.Google Scholar
Wilks, S. S.Weighting systems for linear functions of correlated variables when there is no dependent variable. Psychometrika, 1938, 3, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, F. M.Meta-analysis: Quantitative met hods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yusef, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J. et al. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 1985, 27, 335–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar