Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative.

C Poole1, S Greenland

  • 1Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Public Health, Chapel Hill 27599-7400, USA.

American Journal of Epidemiology
|September 3, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Progress in advanced cellular and gene therapies in South Africa and barriers to patient access: A National Consortium paper on behalf of the BloodSA Cell and Gene Therapy working party.

South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde·2025
Same author

Investigating the Needs and Concerns of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, or Questioning Cancer Patients.

Journal of homosexuality·2024
Same author

In praise of postgraduate career clinics: Translating health professionals' willingness to engagement.

Nursing open·2024
Same author

Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer.

Nature·2022
Same author

Taking therapeutic apheresis services to patients in South Africa: An eight year review of SANBS mobile therapeutic apheresis service, 2013-2020.

Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis·2021
Same author

Quench, Normal Zone Propagation Velocity, and the Development of an Active Protection Scheme for a Conduction Cooled, R&W, MgB<sub>2</sub> MRI Coil Segment.

Superconductor science & technology·2021
Same journal

Correction to: Home dampness and molds and occurrence of respiratory tract infections in the first 27 years of life: the Espoo Cohort Study.

American journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

A SIMPLE AND POWERFUL TEST OF VACCINE WANING.

American journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Association Between maternal body mass index, offspring growth and pubertal timing: results from a longitudinal birth cohort study.

American journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Correction to: Developing a novel algorithm to identify incident and prevalent dementia in Medicare claims-the ARIC Study.

American journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

RE: advancing observational research on arts and health: theory-informed approaches using the RADIANCE framework.

American journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Maternal Cesarean Section and Offspring ASD or ADHD Risk: A Nurses' Health Study II Analysis.

American journal of epidemiology·2026
See all related articles

Random-effects meta-analysis summaries are not always more conservative than fixed-effects summaries. Their estimates may be less conservative and potentially more biased, challenging common assumptions in epidemiological research.

Area of Science:

  • Epidemiology
  • Biostatistics
  • Public Health

Background:

  • The prevailing view suggests random-effects meta-analysis summaries are more conservative than fixed-effects summaries.
  • This is attributed to higher variances and wider confidence intervals in random-effects models when study heterogeneity is present.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To challenge the assumption that random-effects summaries are consistently more conservative than fixed-effects summaries in meta-analysis.
  • To explore the implications of heterogeneity and methodological incomparability on summary effect estimates.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of random-effects and fixed-effects summary estimates in meta-analysis.
  • Examination of a specific meta-analysis example concerning water chlorination and cancer.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Random-effects summaries are not invariably closer to the null value or larger in p-value than fixed-effects summaries.
  • In a water chlorination and cancer meta-analysis, random-effects summaries were less conservative and potentially more biased than fixed-effects summaries.

Conclusions:

  • The assumption of consistent conservatism for random-effects summaries is questionable.
  • The decision to compute summary estimates should consider study comparability, heterogeneity, and publication bias, rather than a default choice between random or fixed effects.