Estimation of Effect Heterogeneity in Rare Events Meta-Analysis

4Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The paper outlines several approaches for dealing with meta-analyses of count outcome data. These counts are the accumulation of occurred events, and these events might be rare, so a special feature of the meta-analysis is dealing with low counts including zero-count studies. Emphasis is put on approaches which are state of the art for count data modelling including mixed log-linear (Poisson) and mixed logistic (binomial) regression as well as nonparametric mixture models for count data of Poisson and binomial type. A simulation study investigates the performance and capability of discrete mixture models in estimating effect heterogeneity. The approaches are exemplified on a meta-analytic case study investigating the acceptance of bibliotherapy.

References Powered by Scopus

Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4

59156Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

32910Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Introduction to Meta-Analysis

14724Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The impact of correction methods on rare-event meta-analysis

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Estimating risk and rate ratio in rare events meta-analysis with the Mantel-Haenszel estimator and assessing heterogeneity

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Nonparametric estimation of the random effects distribution for the risk or rate ratio in rare events meta-analysis with the arm-based and contrast-based approaches

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Holling, H., Jansen, K., Böhning, W., Böhning, D., Martin, S., & Sangnawakij, P. (2022). Estimation of Effect Heterogeneity in Rare Events Meta-Analysis. Psychometrika, 87(3), 1081–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09835-5

Readers over time

‘23‘24‘2502468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Lecturer / Post doc 1

50%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

50%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 3

50%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

17%

Mathematics 1

17%

Chemistry 1

17%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0