Article

A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis

Research Synthesis Methods 11/2010; 1(2):97 - 111. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.12

ABSTRACT There are two popular statistical models for meta-analysis, the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model. The fact that these two models employ similar sets of formulas to compute statistics, and sometimes yield similar estimates for the various parameters, may lead people to believe that the models are interchangeable. In fact, though, the models represent fundamentally different assumptions about the data. The selection of the appropriate model is important to ensure that the various statistics are estimated correctly. Additionally, and more fundamentally, the model serves to place the analysis in context. It provides a framework for the goals of the analysis as well as for the interpretation of the statistics.In this paper we explain the key assumptions of each model, and then outline the differences between the models. We conclude with a discussion of factors to consider when choosing between the two models. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3 Bookmarks
 · 
384 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Much debate in the handedness literature has centred on the relative merits of questionnaire-based measures assessing hand preference versus simple movement tasks such as peg moving or finger tapping, assessing hand performance. A third paradigm has grown in popularity, which assesses choices by participants when either hand could be used to execute movements. These newer measures may be useful in predicting possible “reversed” asymmetries in proportions of non-right handed (“adextral”) people. In the current studies we examine hand choice in large samples of dextral (right handed) and adextral participants. Unlike in some previous experiments on choice, we found that left handers were as biased towards their dominant hand as were right handers, for grasping during a puzzle-making task (study 1). In a second study, participants had to point to either of two suddenly appearing targets with one hand or the other. In study 2, left handers were not significantly less one handed than their right-handed counterparts as in study 1. In a final study, we used random effects meta analysis to summarise the possible differences in hand choice between left handers and right handers across all hand choice studies published to date. The meta analysis suggests that right handers use their dominant hand 12.5% more than left handers favour their dominant hand (with 95% confidence that the real difference lies between 7% and 18%). These last results suggest that our two experiments reported here may represent statistical Type 2 errors. This mean difference may be related to greater left hemispheric language and praxic laterality in right handers. Nevertheless, more data are needed regarding the precise proportions of left and right handers who favour their preferred hands for different tasks.
    Neuropsychologia 09/2014; · 3.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct evidence and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than traditional meta-analysis. This report from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on technical aspects of conducting network meta-analyses (our use of this term includes most methods that involve meta-analysis in the context of a network of evidence). We start with a discussion of strategies for developing networks of evidence. Next we briefly review assumptions of network meta-analysis. Then we focus on the statistical analysis of the data: objectives, models (fixed-effects and random-effects), frequentist versus Bayesian approaches, and model validation. A checklist highlights key components of network meta-analysis, and substantial examples illustrate indirect treatment comparisons (both frequentist and Bayesian approaches) and network meta-analysis. A further section discusses eight key areas for future research.
    Value in Health 06/2011; 14(4):429-37. · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Displaced revenge is targeted at a different person than the original transgressor.•We examine conditions under which displaced revenge can be satisfying.•Displaced revenge is satisfying when the transgressor group is highly entitative.•Interconnectedness and similarity between transgressor and target are both important.•Displaced revenge is goal-directed and can achieve a sense of justice.
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 01/2015; 56.

Full-text

View
8,146 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014