Disentangling Effect Size Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: A Latent Mixture Approach

被引:3
|
作者
Zhang, Nan [1 ]
Wang, Mo [2 ]
Xu, Heng [1 ]
机构
[1] Amer Univ, Kogod Sch Business, 4400 Massachusetts Ave Northwest, Washington, DC 20016 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Warrington Coll Business, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
meta-analysis; moderator analysis; mixture model; latent class analysis; EFFECTS META-REGRESSION; PUBLICATION BIAS; CONFIDENCE-INTERVALS; MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD; MODELS; TRUST; MODERATORS; POWER; INTERVENTIONS; VIRTUALNESS;
D O I
10.1037/met0000368
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
An important task of meta-analysis is to observe, quantify, and explain the heterogeneity across the reported effect sizes of primary studies. A primary issue that challenges this task is the myriad of subtle factors that could have contributed to the observed heterogeneity. We leveraged the recent advances in theoretical machine learning to develop a novel latent mixture-based method for disentangling effect-size heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Mathematical analysis and simulation studies were carried out to demonstrate that, when the observed heterogeneity stems from more than 1 factor, our method can attain a substantially higher statistical power than the traditional methods for moderator analysis without requiring researchers to make judgment calls on which factors to consider or correct for in analyzing the observed heterogeneity. We also conducted a case study with real-world data to show how our method may be used to address long-standing inconsistencies in the literature. Translational Abstract An important task of meta-analysis is to explain the heterogeneity among primary studies. However, it is often a challenge for researchers to delineate the myriad of subtle factors that could have contributed to the observed heterogeneity. We leveraged the recent advances in theoretical machine learning, specifically the efficient decomposition of Gaussian mixture distributions, to develop a novel latent mixture-based method for disentangling heterogeneity in meta-analysis. As demonstrated by mathematical analysis and simulation studies for moderator estimation, our method can attain substantially higher statistical power than the traditional methods without requiring researchers to make judgment calls on which factors to consider or correct for in analyzing the observed heterogeneity.
引用
收藏
页码:373 / 399
页数:27
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] An Effect Size for Regression Predictors in Meta-Analysis
    Aloe, Ariel M.
    Becker, Betsy Jane
    JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL STATISTICS, 2012, 37 (02) : 278 - 297
  • [22] Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis
    Petitti, DB
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (23) : 3625 - 3633
  • [23] Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis
    Higgins, JPT
    Thompson, SG
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (11) : 1539 - 1558
  • [24] Assessment of heterogeneity in meta-analysis
    Lillo-Albert, Guillermo
    Bosca i Robledo, Andrea
    Pous-Serrano, Salvador
    CIRUGIA ESPANOLA, 2024, 102 (08): : 448 - 450
  • [25] Evaluation of heterogeneity in meta-analysis
    Dziri, Chadli
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2023, 25 (05) : 1037 - 1038
  • [26] On the importance of heterogeneity in meta-analysis
    Keefe, Stephen M.
    Strom, Brian L.
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2009, 6 (05) : 443 - 444
  • [27] Comments on the selection of effect model and effect size in a meta-analysis
    Wu, Jiangfeng
    Zhao, Anli
    Ge, Lifang
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 13 (01) : 450 - 451
  • [28] Determining "Significance" Using Effect Size and Meta-Analysis
    Boiarskaia, Elena
    Park, Youngsik
    RESEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERCISE AND SPORT, 2010, 81 (01) : 7 - 7
  • [29] The Effect of Legislature Size on Public Spending: A Meta-Analysis
    Freire, Danilo
    Mignozzetti, Umberto
    Roman, Catarina
    Alptekin, Huzeyfe
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 53 (02) : 776 - 788
  • [30] Estimation of the effect size in meta-analysis with few studies
    Longford, Nicholas T.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2010, 29 (04) : 421 - 430