Yayın: Comparison of heterogeneity measures in meta-analysis
| dc.contributor.author | Toluk, Özlem | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ercan, İlker | |
| dc.contributor.buuauthor | Toluk, Özlem | |
| dc.contributor.buuauthor | ERCAN, İLKER | |
| dc.contributor.department | Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü | |
| dc.contributor.department | Biyoistatistik Ana Bilim Dalı | |
| dc.contributor.orcid | 0000-0001-6495-0839 | |
| dc.contributor.orcid | 0000-0002-2382-290X | |
| dc.contributor.scopusid | 57217182132 | |
| dc.contributor.scopusid | 6603789069 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-11-28T12:10:28Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2025-01-01 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Heterogeneity assessment is critical in meta-analysis, as it determines the appropriateness of combining studies and affects result reliability. Cochran’s Q is the traditional test, nevertheless, it has low statistical power, so many researchers resort to using heterogeneity measures to quantify the heterogeneity. Aim: This article aims to compare the performance of the most commonly used heterogeneity measures through simulation. Materials and Methods: We compared the performance of four heterogeneity measures (!!, !!, !!, H) across various homogeneous and heterogeneous patient-event probabilities [P P! E! and P P! E! ], various sample sizes (n) and number of studies (k), using RMSE (Root mean squared error) and BIAS values in simulation scenarios. Additionally, Cochran’s Q Type-I error rate and power were evaluated using the same simulation scenarios. Results: (Equation Presented) H outperformed other measures in large samples, while (Equation Presented) were preferable for small studies. Conclusion: Researchers can use the simulation results from this study to select an appropriate heterogeneity measure for their meta-analysis work. This approach is expected to prevent time loss due to unnecessary subgroup analyses in situations where heterogeneity appears to be present but is actually absent. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6000/1929-6029.2025.14.30 | |
| dc.identifier.endpage | 322 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 19296029 | |
| dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-105015147716 | |
| dc.identifier.startpage | 308 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11452/57095 | |
| dc.identifier.volume | 14 | |
| dc.indexed.scopus | Scopus | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | Lifescience Global | |
| dc.relation.journal | International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research | |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.subject | Tau2 heterogeneity measure | |
| dc.subject | Simulation | |
| dc.subject | Rb heterogeneity measure | |
| dc.subject | Meta Analysis | |
| dc.subject | I2 heterogeneity measure | |
| dc.subject | H heterogeneity measure | |
| dc.subject.scopus | Meta-Analysis Framework for Clinical Heterogeneity | |
| dc.title | Comparison of heterogeneity measures in meta-analysis | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| local.contributor.department | Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü/Biyoistatistik Ana Bilim Dalı | |
| local.indexed.at | Scopus | |
| relation.isAuthorOfPublication | 50e4dfdb-25cd-43af-94c9-464881669605 | |
| relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery | 50e4dfdb-25cd-43af-94c9-464881669605 |
