{"doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1319","title":"Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random‐effects meta‐analysis","abstract":"<jats:p>Meta‐analyses are an important tool within systematic reviews to estimate the overall effect size and its confidence interval for an outcome of interest. If heterogeneity between the results of the relevant studies is anticipated, then a random‐effects model is often preferred for analysis. In this model, a prediction interval for the true effect in a new study also provides additional useful information. However, the DerSimonian and Laird method—frequently used as the default method for meta‐analyses with random effects—has been long challenged due to its unfavorable statistical properties. Several alternative methods have been proposed that may have better statistical properties in specific scenarios. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of available methods for calculating point estimates, confidence intervals, and prediction intervals for the overall effect size under the random‐effects model. We indicate whether some methods are preferable than others by considering the results of comparative simulation and real‐life data studies.</jats:p>","journal":"Research Synthesis Methods","year":2019,"id":640026,"datarank":0.8220958385012987,"base_score":5.480638923341991,"endowment":5.480638923341991,"self_citation_contribution":0.8220958385012987,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.8220958385012987,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":239,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":20360,"name":"Dan Jackson","orcid":"0000-0002-6349-5026","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1663270,"name":"Ralf Bender","orcid":"0000-0002-2422-4362","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1663271,"name":"Oliver Kuss","orcid":null,"position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1657287,"name":"Dean Langan","orcid":"0000-0002-5414-8882","position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":51733,"name":"Julian P.T. Higgins","orcid":null,"position":5,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1663272,"name":"Guido Knapp","orcid":null,"position":6,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":6209,"name":"Georgia Salanti","orcid":"0000-0002-3830-8508","position":7,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1663269,"name":"Areti Angeliki Veroniki","orcid":"0000-0001-6388-4825","position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random‐effects meta‐analysis","abstract":"<jats:p>Meta‐analyses are an important tool within systematic reviews to estimate the overall effect size and its confidence interval for an outcome of interest. If heterogeneity between the results of the relevant studies is anticipated, then a random‐effects model is often preferred for analysis. In this model, a prediction interval for the true effect in a new study also provides additional useful information. However, the DerSimonian and Laird method—frequently used as the default method for meta‐analyses with random effects—has been long challenged due to its unfavorable statistical properties. Several alternative methods have been proposed that may have better statistical properties in specific scenarios. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of available methods for calculating point estimates, confidence intervals, and prediction intervals for the overall effect size under the random‐effects model. We indicate whether some methods are preferable than others by considering the results of comparative simulation and real‐life data studies.</jats:p>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":5.480638923341991,"endowment":5.480638923341991,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"30129707","pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W2888732220","authors":[],"funders":[{"funder_name":"National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)","grant_id":"NF-SI-0617-10145","title":null}],"total_grants":1,"fwci":12.0895,"citation_percentile":0.99048474,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[{"year":2018,"count":1},{"year":2019,"count":11},{"year":2020,"count":23},{"year":2021,"count":35},{"year":2022,"count":34},{"year":2023,"count":33},{"year":2024,"count":45},{"year":2025,"count":32},{"year":2026,"count":25}],"oa_status":"green","license":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/files/168998485/Methods_to_calculate_CIs_for_ma.pdf","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/files/168998485/Methods_to_calculate_CIs_for_ma.pdf","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fjrsm.1319","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jrsm.1319","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/jrsm.1319","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://hdl.handle.net/1983/2c9e757a-f83b-442f-bac0-2e6bef27e59d","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1319","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30129707","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/2c9e757a-f83b-442f-bac0-2e6bef27e59d","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://boris.unibe.ch/119524/","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10055309/","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/168998485/Methods_to_calculate_CIs_for_ma.pdf","host_type":"repository"}],"fields_of_study":["Meta-analysis and systematic reviews","Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference","Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials","Algorithms","Bayes Theorem","Computer Simulation","Data Interpretation, Statistical","Decision Making","Humans","Likelihood Functions","Meta-Analysis as Topic","Models, Statistical","Random Allocation","Reproducibility of Results","Research Design","Sample Size","Uncertainty"],"mesh_terms":["Algorithms","Bayes Theorem","Computer Simulation","Data Interpretation, Statistical","Decision Making","Humans","Random Allocation","Research Design","Meta-Analysis as Topic","Reproducibility of Results","Models, Statistical","Likelihood Functions","Sample Size","Uncertainty"],"keywords":["Meta-analysis","Random effects model","Confidence interval","Statistics","Point estimation","Econometrics","Outcome (game theory)","Computer science","Prediction interval","Interval (graph theory)","Mathematics","Medicine","Evidence Synthesis","Random Effects","Overall Treatment Effect"],"sdg_mappings":[],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-08-07T05:53:09.347155Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}