↓ Skip to main content

A random effects meta-analysis model with Box-Cox transformation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
A random effects meta-analysis model with Box-Cox transformation
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0376-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yusuke Yamaguchi, Kazushi Maruo, Christopher Partlett, Richard D. Riley

Abstract

In a random effects meta-analysis model, true treatment effects for each study are routinely assumed to follow a normal distribution. However, normality is a restrictive assumption and the misspecification of the random effects distribution may result in a misleading estimate of overall mean for the treatment effect, an inappropriate quantification of heterogeneity across studies and a wrongly symmetric prediction interval. We focus on problems caused by an inappropriate normality assumption of the random effects distribution, and propose a novel random effects meta-analysis model where a Box-Cox transformation is applied to the observed treatment effect estimates. The proposed model aims to normalise an overall distribution of observed treatment effect estimates, which is sum of the within-study sampling distributions and the random effects distribution. When sampling distributions are approximately normal, non-normality in the overall distribution will be mainly due to the random effects distribution, especially when the between-study variation is large relative to the within-study variation. The Box-Cox transformation addresses this flexibly according to the observed departure from normality. We use a Bayesian approach for estimating parameters in the proposed model, and suggest summarising the meta-analysis results by an overall median, an interquartile range and a prediction interval. The model can be applied for any kind of variables once the treatment effect estimate is defined from the variable. A simulation study suggested that when the overall distribution of treatment effect estimates are skewed, the overall mean and conventional I (2) from the normal random effects model could be inappropriate summaries, and the proposed model helped reduce this issue. We illustrated the proposed model using two examples, which revealed some important differences on summary results, heterogeneity measures and prediction intervals from the normal random effects model. The random effects meta-analysis with the Box-Cox transformation may be an important tool for examining robustness of traditional meta-analysis results against skewness on the observed treatment effect estimates. Further critical evaluation of the method is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Mathematics 2 13%
Psychology 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Linguistics 1 6%
Other 4 25%
Unknown 4 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,328,650
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#705
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,211
of 316,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#11
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.