Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Studies included in meta-analysis had heterogenous, not homogenous, results
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
Jaakkimainen et al's meta-analysis concludes that an
improvement in dyspeptic symptoms occurred among
patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia in whom Helicobacter
pylori was eradicated.1
Unfortunately, there is a small but crucial problem at the heart of the
analysis. The authors report that the summary estimates are
statistically homogenous, but this is incorrect. In the observational
studies the P value of <0.001 indicates massive heterogeneity between
the results of the studies included. In the therapeutic trials the P
value of 0.046 also indicates heterogeneity.
Meta-analysts faced with such heterogeneity have three choices: they
may ignore the heterogeneity and pool the results with a fixed effects
model; they may use a random effects model, which takes the
heterogeneity into account; or they may decide not to pool the results.
In this instance the authors chose to use a fixed effects model despite
the heterogeneity. In consequence the confidence intervals of the
pooled
sometimes informative, usually misleading