A novel approach for identifying and addressing case-mix heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis

Anna Chaimani; Raphael Porcher; Stijn Vansteelandt; Tat-Thang Vo

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A novel approach for identifying and addressing case-mix heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that meta-analyses should standardize each trial's results to a defined target population before pooling, so the summary effect describes that population and heterogeneity splits into case-mix and beyond case-mix…

desk verdict A genuinely useful framework for IPD meta-analysis that standardizes to a target population and splits heterogeneity, but the random-effects pooling step ignores correlation among the standardized estimates and needs a fix. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10613 v3 pith:JQ22MLRM submitted 2019-08-28 stat.AP stat.ME

Tat-Thang Vo , Raphael Porcher , Anna Chaimani , Stijn Vansteelandt This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.APstat.ME MSC 62P10

keywords meta-analysisindividualparticipantdatacase-mixheterogeneitydirectstandardizationinverseprobabilityweightingoutcomeregressiontransportabilityrandom-effectsmodel

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that standard random-effects meta-analysis answers an ill-defined question: the pooled effect is an average over a population whose case mix is never made explicit. It proposes instead to standardize each trial's results to the case mix of a chosen target population—say, the patients in one trial—before pooling, so the meta-analytic summary describes that population. Two estimators are developed: outcome regression (OCR), which predicts outcomes under a fitted logistic model, and inverse probability weighting (IPW), which reweights each trial's patients to mimic the target population. Under four assumptions, both estimators consistently estimate the target-population treatment effect, and the between-trial variance from the subsequent random-effects meta-analysis isolates beyond case-mix heterogeneity. This matters because treatments equal in every subgroup can look different across trials solely because case mixes differ, and the approach makes that distinction visible.

What carries the argument

The machinery is direct standardization transported across trials. The key identity expresses the target-population risk in trial j under study k as an expectation over the covariate distribution of population j of the trial-k outcome regression; IPW replaces that expectation with weighted averages using weights proportional to the odds of being in trial j versus trial k given covariates. Logistic models supply the required regressions: an outcome model for the OCR estimator and a multinomial propensity-score model for study membership for the IPW estimator. The random-effects meta-analysis of the standardized log relative risks or log odds ratios then produces the pooled estimate for the target population, with $tau^{2}$ measuring beyond case-mix heterogeneity and Wald tests separating the two heterogeneity sources.

What would settle it

Simulate data with an unmeasured covariate U that affects both trial membership and the outcome; apply the proposed IPW and OCR estimators using only the measured covariates and compare their estimates of the target-population relative risk to the true value as the sample size grows. Systematic bias would falsify the consistency claim; a direct empirical check is to test, when the control treatment is common across trials, whether control-group outcome risk is independent of trial membership given the covariates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that case-mix heterogeneity can be removed from meta-analysis, rather than merely acknowledged, by transporting each trial's effect estimate to a common, explicitly defined patient population. For a binary outcome, the paper defines the target quantity as the risk, relative risk, or odds ratio that would be observed if all individuals in population j received the version of treatment versus control used in trial k. Under ignorable study assignment given covariates L, positivity, consistency, and randomization within trials, the OCR estimator—predicting outcomes from a logistic model fitted in each trial—and the IPW estimator—reweighting by the fitted probability of trial membership—both identify these transported effects. Pooling the transported estimates with a random-effects model then yields a summary treatment effect for population j, and its between-trial variance $tau^{2}$ reflects only beyond case-mix heterogeneity, not differences in covariate distributions across trials.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is ignorable study assignment: conditional on the measured covariates, trial membership carries no information about a patient's outcome risk under either treatment, so any omitted variable that affects both trial membership and outcome biases the standardized estimates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Meta-analytic summaries become population-specific: the same set of trials can yield different summary effects for different well-defined target populations, and each summary is interpretable.
Heterogeneity assessment can be decomposed: tests comparing transported effects can distinguish case-mix heterogeneity from beyond case-mix heterogeneity, so a null overall heterogeneity test no longer masks compensating sources.
Trials with poor overlap are flagged: IPW produces unstable or extreme weights near positivity violations, warning against pooling dissimilar populations where standard meta-analysis and OCR could proceed silently.
The approach extends to observational studies: OCR only needs confounders in the outcome model, while IPW needs additional weighting by the probability of the observed treatment.
Trialists could report mutually standardized estimates using an external reference registry, enabling standard meta-analysis on the same target population without sharing individual patient data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Inference: if the approach were adopted in evidence-synthesis guidelines, choosing the target population would become a substantive decision—such as the broadest or most policy-relevant case mix—rather than an implicit feature of the included trials.
Inference: the decomposition suggests a diagnostic: plot each trial's transported effect against target-population covariate means; if beyond case-mix tau^2 remains large after standardization, unmeasured treatment-version differences or assumption violations are at play.
Inference: the same standardization could be used prospectively in trial design, with the IPW weight distribution serving as a pretrial check that inclusion criteria ensure adequate overlap with the target population.
Inference: for non-collapsible effect measures like odds ratios, the standardization could reduce artificial heterogeneity in observational evidence syntheses where studies adjust for different covariate sets; the paper mentions this possibility but leaves its implementation open.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper makes a move that meta-analysis should care about: instead of pooling effects that refer to each trial's own, implicit population, standardize every trial to one explicit target population and then pool. That turns case-mix heterogeneity into a design choice rather than a nuisance, and lets you separate it from beyond-case-mix heterogeneity. The estimators themselves are standard g-computation and IPW; the contribution is the systematic application and the heterogeneity decomposition. The simulations are thoughtfully designed, and Settings 1 and 2 in particular show how standard tests can miss compensating heterogeneity, which is a real practical point. The paper is also honest about the untestable ignorability assumption and about positivity failures, and the vitamin D reanalysis is a reasonable illustration, not an overclaim.

The soft spot that matters most is Section 3.5. The random-effects meta-analysis pools theta-hat_j^k for different source trials k as if the within-study errors were independent. They aren't. For the IPW estimator, the propensity model for trial k versus target j is fitted using trial j's data, and for two different source trials those fitted models share the target trial's observations, so the estimated weights are correlated. For OCR, the estimates share the target covariate distribution. The paper says to estimate the individual standard errors by bootstrap or sandwich, but does not say the meta-analysis is multivariate or that a joint bootstrap is used. So the inverse-variance weighted mean and the between-trial tau-squared are not correctly characterized. This is an internal statistical gap, distinct from the acknowledged ignorability assumption, and it's fixable — multivariate meta-analysis or a cluster bootstrap would address it — but as written the inference at the pooling stage is not right.

The appendices with the derivations were not available in the version I read, so I can't verify the theory. That's a practical limitation rather than a red flag. Smaller issues: the real-data analysis makes data-dependent model-selection choices (backward elimination, weight truncation) without accounting for them, which is worth noting but not fatal. The paper's citations are appropriate; the self-citations are to prior work on collapsibility and g-computation and are not self-promotional.

Net verdict: the core proposal is sound and important, but the pooling step needs to be corrected or at least explicitly justified. The paper deserves a serious referee, with the correlation issue as the main required revision. If I worked on IPD meta-analysis, I would want this in the literature — after the fix — because the heterogeneity decomposition is genuinely valuable. I'd bring it to a reading group and would cite the framework in future work, with a caveat about the current inference gap.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a causal-inference framework for individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized trials. For a chosen target population j, the authors define the treatment effect that would be observed if the treatment version used in another trial k were applied to population j, and they estimate it by direct standardization using either outcome regression (OCR) or inverse probability weighting (IPW). The resulting estimates for a fixed target population are then pooled with a random-effects meta-analysis, and the authors claim that the between-trial variance tau-squared reflects only beyond case-mix heterogeneity, while comparisons across target populations reveal case-mix heterogeneity. The method is evaluated in simulations and illustrated on a published IPD meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation for acute respiratory infection.

Significance. The paper addresses a real and underappreciated problem in meta-analysis: standard summary estimates are tied to an implicit, often poorly defined case mix. Making the target population explicit through standardization is conceptually valuable, and the OCR and IPW estimators are natural and well-motivated choices. The authors are transparent about the untestable ignorability assumption and about positivity failures, and the simulation study covers model misspecification and near-positivity violations in a systematic way. If the random-effects pooling issue described below is resolved, the paper would be a useful methodological contribution to IPD meta-analysis.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.5] For a fixed target population j, the estimates log(R_j^k) for k = 1, ..., K have correlated sampling errors, because for the IPW estimator the propensity-score model P(S=j|L)/P(S=k|L) is fitted using the same trial-j observations for every k, and for both estimators the target covariate distribution is estimated from the empirical covariate distribution of trial j. The univariate random-effects model and the inverse-variance weighted average presented in Section 3.5 treat the within-study errors as independent and use only individual standard errors. As a result, the reported standard error of the pooled estimate and the estimate of tau-squared are not the quantities claimed; tau-squared is contaminated by nonzero covariance terms and cannot be interpreted as reflecting only beyond case-mix heterogeneity. The paper should either replace the univariate pooling with a multivariate random-effects meta-analysis that uses the full within-study covariance matrix (e.g., from a joint bootstrap or sandwich estimator), or explicitly justify that the correlations are negligible in the settings considered.
[Section 4.3.1 and Section 4.3.2] Setting 6 is the only simulation with more than two trials and therefore the only setting in which the proposed random-effects pooling step is actually exercised, but the results are reported only as "data not shown" and "similar results were obtained." Given that the central methodological novelty includes the pooling step and the tau-squared decomposition, the authors should report the setting-6 results, including bias and coverage of the pooled estimates and the operating characteristics of the heterogeneity tests, rather than relying on a summary statement.

minor comments (4)

[Appendices 1-4] The main text refers to Appendices 1-3 for the derivations of the identifying formulas and to Appendix 4 for the simulation details, but these appendices were not available in the version provided for review; the final version should include them so that the identification arguments can be checked.
[Section 3.3, model (2)] The text says the logistic model holds in population j but then states that the coefficients are obtained by fitting model (2) to data from trial k; this subscripting should be clarified to avoid confusion between the target population and the source trial.
[Section 4.2] The displayed formula for the true value of the estimand appears garbled in the provided text, particularly the use of the notation p-hat and the summation limits; please re-typeset this formula so that the simulation ground truth is unambiguous.
[Section 5] The choice to truncate IPW weights at the 95th percentile and the threshold of 200 for flagging large weights are mentioned without a rationale or sensitivity analysis; please justify these choices or cite relevant guidance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: estimators are derived from stated causal assumptions and validated by independent simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that, under assumptions (i) to (iv) in Section 3.2, the OCR and IPW estimators consistently estimate the treatment effect in a target trial population, and that pooling these estimates yields a summary effect for a well-defined population. Neither estimator is defined as the target estimand nor fitted to it. The OCR estimator is built from a logistic outcome model fitted in each source trial and then transported by replacing the covariate distribution with that of the target population; the IPW estimator uses a propensity-score model for trial membership fitted to source and target data. These are standard transportability formulas justified by the stated counterfactual independence, positivity, consistency, and randomization assumptions, not by assuming the target RR or OR values. The simulation study computes true estimands independently from the true data-generating coefficients in a separate 5000-run simulation, so the numerical evaluation is not a fit of the answer into the input. The skeptical concern about correlated standardized estimates in the random-effects pooling is a statistical-correctness issue about covariance structure, but it is not circularity: it does not make the claimed pooled estimate equal to an input by construction, nor does it rely on a self-citation chain. The self-citations that appear, such as Vansteelandt and Keiding, are used as commentary on extrapolation risks and are not load-bearing for the derivation. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the untestable ignorable study assignment assumption and correct specification of the working models. There are no invented physical or theoretical entities; the proposed method relies on existing causal inference machinery.

free parameters (2)

IPW weight truncation threshold = 95th percentile
Applied to IPW weights in the real data analysis (Section 5) to stabilize estimation; chosen by the authors.
Interaction terms in outcome and propensity models = five interactions selected via backward elimination
Selected on the same dataset used for inference (Section 5), not prespecified; parameter selection is data-dependent.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Ignorable study assignment: trial indicator independent of counterfactual outcomes given L
Section 3.2(i); untestable, requires L to include all prognostic factors differentially distributed across trials.
domain assumption Positivity: each patient in the target population has positive probability of being in each trial, given L
Section 3.2(ii); needed for overlap and standardization; may be violated (setting 3, vitamin D analysis).
domain assumption Consistency: observed outcome equals counterfactual outcome under assigned treatment
Section 3.2(iii); plausible in RCTs.
domain assumption Ignorable treatment assignment within study
Section 3.2(iv); guaranteed by randomization.
domain assumption Outcome regression model for OCR is correctly specified (logistic, with interactions)
Section 3.3; misspecification leads to bias as shown in simulations.
domain assumption Propensity score model for IPW is correctly specified (multinomial logistic)
Section 3.4; misspecification leads to bias (IPW3 in setting 1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A novel approach for identifying and addressing case-mix heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQ22MLRM

@misc{pith2026190810613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A novel approach for identifying and addressing case-mix heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQ22MLRM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10613}
}

read the original abstract

Case-mix heterogeneity across studies complicates meta-analyses. As a result of this, treatments that are equally effective on patient subgroups may appear to have different effectiveness on patient populations with different case mix. It is therefore important that meta-analyses be explicit for what patient population they describe the treatment effect. To achieve this, we develop a new approach for meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, which use individual patient data (IPD) from all trials to infer the treatment effect for the patient population in a given trial, based on direct standardization using either outcome regression (OCR) or inverse probability weighting (IPW). Accompanying random-effect meta-analysis models are developed. The new approach enables disentangling heterogeneity due to case mix from that due to beyond case-mix reasons.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Efficient and robust methods for causally interpretable meta-analysis: transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a target population
stat.ME 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper identifies potential outcome means in a target population from a collection of randomized trials and proves a doubly robust estimator for them.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

1–3 One critical concern in meta -analysis i s the presence of heterogeneity, which arises from the clinical and methodological diversity of the considered studies

INTRODUCTION Meta-analysis (MA) is a cornerstone of comparative effectiveness research, as it allows synthesizing the evidence from multiple randomized controlled trials. 1–3 One critical concern in meta -analysis i s the presence of heterogeneity, which arises from the clinical and methodological diversity of the considered studies. For instance, differe...

work page
[2]

the patient population observed in one (say, the largest or the most heterogeneous ) of the considered trials

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS: A CAUSAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Aim Our proposal below aims to infer the treatment effect for a well-defined population, e.g. the patient population observed in one (say, the largest or the most heterogeneous ) of the considered trials. In particular, we will first use the data from each tri...

work page
[3]

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? Yes

Annane D, Jaeschke R, Guyatt G. Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? Yes. Intensive Care Med. April 2018:1-3. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5102-3

work page doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5102-3 2018
[4]

We consider six settings

A SIMULATION STUDY 4.1 Design We apply the proposed approaches in numerically simulated randomized controlled trials that evaluate a binary treatment versus control with respect to a binary outcome . We consider six settings. For pedagogic purposes, the first five settings investigate a relatively simple situation in which the meta -analysis only includes...

work page
[5]

For this illustration , we only consider the covariates that were collected across all trials

META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF VITAMIN D SUPPLEMENTATION ON ACUTE RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTION We apply the proposed approach to reanalyze a recently published IPD meta -analysis assessing the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of experiencing at least one acute respiratory tract infection.28 Data for six eligible trials that include i...

work page
[6]

pragmatic

DISCUSSION Assessing the impact of case -mix variation across the eligible studies is an important task in every meta-analysis. Case-mix heterogeneity, when it exists, can be quite a nuisance as it can make the result from a meta -analysis difficult to interpret. In this paper, we propose a novel framework which overcomes this by standardizing evidences a...

work page
[7]

The Cochrane Collaboration

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors); 2011. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed March 31, 2018

work page 2011
[8]

A re-evaluation of random-effects meta- analysis

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta- analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137-159. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 985X.2008.00552.x

arXiv 2009

Show all 36 references

[9]

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure

Møller MH, Ioannidis JPA, Darmon M. Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure. Intensive Care Med. April 2018:1-3. doi:10.1007/s00134- 017-5039-y

2018 doi
[10]

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No

Chevret S, Ferguson ND, Bellomo R. Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No. Intensive Care Med. April 2018:1-3. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5066-3

2018 doi
[11]

Meta-Transportability of Causal Effects: A Formal Approach

Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Meta-Transportability of Causal Effects: A Formal Approach. In: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. ; 2013:135-143. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v31/bareinboim13a.html. Accessed March 31, 2018

2013
[12]

External Validity: From Do-Calculus to Transportability Across Populations

Pearl J, Bareinboim E. External Validity: From Do-Calculus to Transportability Across Populations. Stat Sci. 2014;29(4):579-595. doi:10.1214/14-STS486

2014 doi
[13]

A Causal Inference Approach to Network Meta-Analysis

Schnitzer ME, Steele RJ, Bally M, Shrier I. A Causal Inference Approach to Network Meta-Analysis. J Causal Inference. 2016;4(2). doi:10.1515/jci-2016-0014

2016 doi
[14]

Transportability in Network Meta-analysis

Kabali C, Ghazipura M. Transportability in Network Meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2016;27(4):556-561. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000475

2016 doi
[15]

In: Introduction to Meta-Analysis

Random-Effects Model. In: Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2009:69-75. doi:10.1002/9780470743386.ch12

2009 doi
[16]

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186

2002 doi
[17]

Causal inference and the data-fusion problem

Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(27):7345-7352. doi:10.1073/pnas.1510507113 16

2016 doi
[18]

A., Moons Karel G

Debray Thomas P. A., Moons Karel G. M., Valkenhoef Gert, et al. Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(4):293-309. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1160

2015 doi
[19]

Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting

Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221

2010
[20]

Causal inference based on counterfactuals

Höfler M. Causal inference based on counterfactuals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:28. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-28

2005 doi
[21]

Causal inference from experiment and observation

Zwahlen M, Salanti G. Causal inference from experiment and observation. Evid Based Ment Health. 2018;21(1):34-38. doi:10.1136/eb-2017-102859

2018 doi
[22]

Invited commentary: positivity in practice

Westreich D, Cole SR. Invited commentary: positivity in practice. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(6):674-677; discussion 678-681. doi:10.1093/aje/kwp436

2010 doi
[23]

Network Meta-Analysis: An Introduction for Clinicians

Rouse B, Chaimani A, Li T. Network Meta-Analysis: An Introduction for Clinicians. Intern Emerg Med. 2017;12(1):103-111. doi:10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7

2017 doi
[24]

The Simpson’s paradox unraveled

Hernán MA, Clayton D, Keiding N. The Simpson’s paradox unraveled. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):780-785. doi:10.1093/ije/dyr041

2011 doi
[25]

The Consistency Assumption for Causal Inference in Social Epidemiology: When a Rose is Not a Rose

Rehkopf DH, Glymour MM, Osypuk TL. The Consistency Assumption for Causal Inference in Social Epidemiology: When a Rose is Not a Rose. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2016;3(1):63-71. doi:10.1007/s40471-016-0069-5

2016 doi
[26]

Population heterogeneity and causal inference

Xie Y. Population heterogeneity and causal inference. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(16):6262-6268. doi:10.1073/pnas.1303102110

2013 doi
[27]

Invited commentary: G-computation--lost in translation? Am J Epidemiol

Vansteelandt S, Keiding N. Invited commentary: G-computation--lost in translation? Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(7):739-742. doi:10.1093/aje/kwq474

2011 doi
[28]

Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology

Robins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2000;11(5):550-560

2000
[29]

Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies

Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661-3679. doi:10.1002/sim.6607

2015 doi
[30]

Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models

Cole SR, Hernán MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):656-664. doi:10.1093/aje/kwn164

2008 doi
[31]

Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data

Seaman SR, White IR. Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(3):278-295. doi:10.1177/0962280210395740 17

2013 doi
[32]

Essential Statistical Inference: Theory and Methods

Boos DD, Stefanski LA. Essential Statistical Inference: Theory and Methods. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2013. //www.springer.com/us/book/9781461448174. Accessed April 27, 2018

2013
[33]

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583

2017
[34]

Adjustments and their Consequences—Collapsibility Analysis using Graphical Models

Greenland Sander, Pearl Judea. Adjustments and their Consequences—Collapsibility Analysis using Graphical Models. Int Stat Rev. 2011;79(3):401-426. doi:10.1111/j.1751- 5823.2011.00158.x

2011
[35]

A Note on the Noncollapsibility of Rate Differences and Rate Ratios

Sjölander A, Dahlqwist E, Zetterqvist J. A Note on the Noncollapsibility of Rate Differences and Rate Ratios. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2016;27(3):356-359. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000433

2016 doi
[36]

On collapsibility and confounding bias in Cox and Aalen regression models

Martinussen T, Vansteelandt S. On collapsibility and confounding bias in Cox and Aalen regression models. Lifetime Data Anal. 2013;19(3):279-296. doi:10.1007/s10985-013- 9242-z 18 Data sharing statement The data that support the findings of this study are available on request ...

2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

1–3 One critical concern in meta -analysis i s the presence of heterogeneity, which arises from the clinical and methodological diversity of the considered studies

INTRODUCTION Meta-analysis (MA) is a cornerstone of comparative effectiveness research, as it allows synthesizing the evidence from multiple randomized controlled trials. 1–3 One critical concern in meta -analysis i s the presence of heterogeneity, which arises from the clinical and methodological diversity of the considered studies. For instance, differe...

work page

[2] [2]

the patient population observed in one (say, the largest or the most heterogeneous ) of the considered trials

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS: A CAUSAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Aim Our proposal below aims to infer the treatment effect for a well-defined population, e.g. the patient population observed in one (say, the largest or the most heterogeneous ) of the considered trials. In particular, we will first use the data from each tri...

work page

[3] [3]

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? Yes

Annane D, Jaeschke R, Guyatt G. Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? Yes. Intensive Care Med. April 2018:1-3. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5102-3

work page doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5102-3 2018

[4] [4]

We consider six settings

A SIMULATION STUDY 4.1 Design We apply the proposed approaches in numerically simulated randomized controlled trials that evaluate a binary treatment versus control with respect to a binary outcome . We consider six settings. For pedagogic purposes, the first five settings investigate a relatively simple situation in which the meta -analysis only includes...

work page

[5] [5]

For this illustration , we only consider the covariates that were collected across all trials

META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF VITAMIN D SUPPLEMENTATION ON ACUTE RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTION We apply the proposed approach to reanalyze a recently published IPD meta -analysis assessing the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of experiencing at least one acute respiratory tract infection.28 Data for six eligible trials that include i...

work page

[6] [6]

pragmatic

DISCUSSION Assessing the impact of case -mix variation across the eligible studies is an important task in every meta-analysis. Case-mix heterogeneity, when it exists, can be quite a nuisance as it can make the result from a meta -analysis difficult to interpret. In this paper, we propose a novel framework which overcomes this by standardizing evidences a...

work page

[7] [7]

The Cochrane Collaboration

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors); 2011. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed March 31, 2018

work page 2011

[8] [8]

A re-evaluation of random-effects meta- analysis

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta- analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137-159. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 985X.2008.00552.x

arXiv 2009