<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Wiksten A</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Rücker G</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Schwarzer G</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2016</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">A widely used method in classic random-effects meta-analysis is the DerSimonian-Laird method. An alternative meta-analytical approach is the Hartung-Knapp method. This article reports results of an empirical comparison and a simulation study of these two methods and presents corresponding analytical results. For the empirical evaluation, we took 157 meta-analyses with binary outcomes, analysed each one using both methods and performed a comparison of the results based on treatment estimates, standard errors and associated P-values. In several simulation scenarios, we systematically evaluated coverage probabilities and confidence interval lengths. Generally, results are more conservative with the Hartung-Knapp method, giving wider confidence intervals and larger P-values for the overall treatment effect. However, in some meta-analyses with very homogeneous individual treatment results, the Hartung-Knapp method yields narrower confidence intervals and smaller P-values than the classic random-effects method, which in this situation, actually reduces to a fixed-effect meta-analysis. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct a sensitivity analysis based on the fixed-effect model instead of solely relying on the result of the Hartung-Knapp random-effects meta-analysis. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</dc:description>
  <dc:identifier>https://sonar.ch/global/documents/264380</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1002/sim.6879</dc:relation>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/26842654</dc:relation>
  <dc:source>Statistics in medicine. - 2016</dc:source>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">DerSimonian-Laird method</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns2="xml" ns2:lang="en">Hartung-Knapp method</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns3="xml" ns3:lang="en">empirical evaluation</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns4="xml" ns4:lang="en">meta-analysis</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns5="xml" ns5:lang="en">Humans</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns6="xml" ns6:lang="en">Meta-Analysis as Topic</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns7="xml" ns7:lang="en">Probability</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns8="xml" ns8:lang="en">Treatment Outcome</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns9="xml" ns9:lang="en">Hartung-Knapp method is not always conservative compared with fixed-effect meta-analysis.</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>
