Premium
Hartung–Knapp method is not always conservative compared with fixed‐effect meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Wiksten Anna,
Rücker Gerta,
Schwarzer Guido
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
statistics in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.996
H-Index - 183
eISSN - 1097-0258
pISSN - 0277-6715
DOI - 10.1002/sim.6879
Subject(s) - meta analysis , confidence interval , statistics , random effects model , mathematics , homogeneous , fixed effects model , binary number , econometrics , computer science , medicine , combinatorics , arithmetic , panel data
A widely used method in classic random‐effects meta‐analysis is the DerSimonian–Laird method. An alternative meta‐analytical approach is the Hartung–Knapp method. This article reports results of an empirical comparison and a simulation study of these two methods and presents corresponding analytical results. For the empirical evaluation, we took 157 meta‐analyses with binary outcomes, analysed each one using both methods and performed a comparison of the results based on treatment estimates, standard errors and associated P ‐values. In several simulation scenarios, we systematically evaluated coverage probabilities and confidence interval lengths. Generally, results are more conservative with the Hartung–Knapp method, giving wider confidence intervals and larger P ‐values for the overall treatment effect. However, in some meta‐analyses with very homogeneous individual treatment results, the Hartung–Knapp method yields narrower confidence intervals and smaller P ‐values than the classic random‐effects method, which in this situation, actually reduces to a fixed‐effect meta‐analysis. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct a sensitivity analysis based on the fixed‐effect model instead of solely relying on the result of the Hartung–Knapp random‐effects meta‐analysis. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.