Beyond Cochrane’s I²: Diverse Methods for Assessing Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v102i12.5561Mots-clés :
Heterogeneity, Meta-Analysis, CochraneRésumé
Not applicable
Téléchargements
Références
CHERIF H, DZIRI C.We need a Prediction Interval to evaluate the heterogeneity of meta-analyses. Tunis Med.
Hamad AA, Alkhawaldeh IM, Abbas A, et al. Incidence and risk factors of venous thromboembolism in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tunis Med 2024; 102: 610–615.
Dziri C. How to assess heterogeneity for a meta-analysis? Tunis Med 2022; 100: 353-undefined.
Dwivedi SN. Which is the Preferred Measure of Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis and Why? A Revisit. Biostat Biometrics Open Access J 2017; 1.. DOI: 10.19080/BBOAJ.2017.01.555555.
Higgins JPT. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327.. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
Cochran WG. The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments. Biometrics 1954; 10. DOI: 10.2307/3001666.
Borenstein M, Higgins JPT, Hedges L V., et al. Basics of meta‐analysis: I 2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods 2017; 8. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1230.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186.
Fichiers supplémentaires
Publiée
Numéro
Rubrique
Catégories
Licence
Merci de créditer les auteurs lors de toute citation : La Tunisie Médicale (2024)
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
