Scinovex
review Open AccessTop 1% cited

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

BMJ · 2003 · Vol. 327(7414) · pp. 557–560
Julian P. T. HigginsSimon G. ThompsonJonathan J DeeksDouglas G. Altman

Abstract

Paper from the BMJ by Higgins J. P. T. et al
\nCochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the
\nconsistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is
\nassessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice?

MeSH terms

Data Interpretation, StatisticalSensitivity and SpecificityMeta-Analysis as TopicReproducibility of Results
Citations
61,700
FWCI
438.08
field-weighted impact
References
27
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Cited by
Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · 1,112 citations
Quantifying Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Biometrics · 2017 · 1,574 citations
The Complications of Myopia: A Review and Meta-Analysis
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · 2020 · 773 citations
Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · 1,662 citations
References
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2001 · 3,689 citations
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Statistics in Medicine · 2002 · 36,106 citations
The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments
Biometrics · 1954 · 5,313 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.