Beyond Cochrane’s I²: Diverse Methods for Assessing Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abdullah Ashraf Hamad
Ibraheem M Alkhawaldeh

Abstract

Not applicable

Keywords:

Heterogeneity, Meta-Analysis, Cochrane

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. CHERIF H, DZIRI C.We need a Prediction Interval to evaluate the heterogeneity of meta-analyses. Tunis Med.
  2. 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.
  3. Dziri C. How to assess heterogeneity for a meta-analysis? Tunis Med 2022; 100: 353-undefined.
  4. 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.
  5. Higgins JPT. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327.. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
  6. Cochran WG. The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments. Biometrics 1954; 10. DOI: 10.2307/3001666.
  7. 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.
  8. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186.