Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 31, 2026.

Quantifying the impact of between‐study heterogeneity in multivariate meta‐analyses

Dan Jackson, Ian R. White, Richard D. Riley

Statistics in Medicine · 2012

doi:10.1002/sim.5453

Abstract

Measures that quantify the impact of heterogeneity in univariate meta‐analysis, including the very popular I 2 statistic, are now well established. Multivariate meta‐analysis, where studies provide multiple outcomes that are pooled in a single analysis, is also becoming more commonly used. The question of how to quantify heterogeneity in the multivariate setting is therefore raised. It is the univariate R 2 statistic, the ratio of the variance of the estimated treatment effect under the random and fixed effects models, that generalises most naturally, so this statistic provides our basis. This statistic is then used to derive a multivariate analogue of I 2 , which we call . We also provide a multivariate H 2 statistic, the ratio of a generalisation of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic and its associated degrees of freedom, with an accompanying generalisation of the usual I 2 statistic, . Our proposed heterogeneity statistics can be used alongside all the usual estimates and inferential procedures used in multivariate meta‐analysis. We apply our methods to some real datasets and show how our statistics are equally appropriate in the context of multivariate meta‐regression, where study level covariate effects are included in the model. Our heterogeneity statistics may be used when applying any procedure for fitting the multivariate random effects model. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 22

  1. 1.

    Dersimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1986;7:177-188.

    Not in our library10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

  2. 2.

    Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie RL. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random-effect model in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 1997;16:753-768.

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::aid-sim494>3.0.co;2-g

  3. 3.
    A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis · 2008
    No notice
  4. 4.

    Jackson D. The power of the standard test for the presence of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2006;25:2688-2699.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.2481

  5. 5.

    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2002;21:1539-1558.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.1186

  6. 6.

    Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2008.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.
    Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead · 2008
    No notice
  8. 8.

    van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine. 2002;21:589-624.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.1040

  9. 9.

    Nam IS, Mengerson K, Garthwaite P. Multivariate meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2003;22:2309-2333.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.1410

  10. 10.
    Multivariate meta‐analysis: Potential and promise · 2011
    No notice
  11. 11.

    Riley R. Multivariate meta-analysis: the effect of ignoring within-study correlation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A. 2009;172:789-811.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.
    Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation · 2007
    No notice
  13. 13.

    White IR. Multivariate random-effect meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. The Stata Journal. 2011;11:255-270.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    Jackson D, White IR, Thompson SG. Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random-effect meta-analyses. Statistics in Medicine. 2010;29:1282-1297.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.3602

  15. 15.

    Berkey CS, Antczak-Bouckoms A, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Pihlstrom BL. Multiple-outcomes meta-analysis of treatments for periodontal disease. Journal of Dental Research. 1995;74:1030-1039.

    Not in our library10.1177/00220345950740040201

  16. 16.

    Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Antczak-Bouckoms A, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. Statistics in Medicine. 1998;17:2537-2550.

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981130)17:22<2537::aid-sim953>3.0.co;2-c

  17. 17.

    McDaid C, Griffin S, Weatherley H, Durée K, van der Burgt M, van Hout S, Akers J, Davies RJO, Sculpher M, Westwood M. 2007.

    Not in our library10.3310/hta13040

  18. 18.

    Biggerstaff BJ, Jackson D. The exact distribution of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic in one-way random-effect meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2008;27:6093-6110.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.3428

  19. 19.

    Mittlbock M, Heinzl H. A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Statistics in Medicine. 2006;25:4321-4333.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.2692

  20. 20.

    Hand DJ. Evaluating diagnostic tests: the area under the ROC curve and the balance of errors. Statistics in Medicine. 2010;29:1502-1510.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.3859

  21. 21.

    Johnson RA, Wichern DW. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. 2002.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    Horn RA, Johnson CR. Matrix Analysis. 1985.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 9

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.