Statistical Question

Meta-analyses: heterogeneity and subgroup analysis

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4040 (Published 24 June 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f4040

Get access to this article and all of bmj.com for the next 14 days

Sign up for a 14 day free trial today

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Philip Sedgwick, reader in medical statistics and medical education
  1. 1Centre for Medical and Healthcare Education, St George’s, University of London, Tooting, London, UK
  1. p.sedgwick{at}sgul.ac.uk

Researchers undertook a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital for older adults admitted as an emergency. They included randomised controlled trials that compared comprehensive geriatric assessment with usual care. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process used to determine the medical, psychological, and functional capabilities of a frail elderly person so as to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long term follow-up. Usual care usually involved admission to a general medical ward setting under the care of a non-specialist. Twenty two trials were identified, evaluating 10 315 participants in six countries.1

The primary outcome was “living at home” at the end of the scheduled follow-up period. This outcome was reported by 18 trials evaluating 7062 participants. The median follow-up was 12 months (range six weeks to 12 months). The test of heterogeneity for these trials gave χ2=28.49, df=17, P=0.04, I2=40%. The total overall estimate indicated that the odds of a patient living at home at the end of scheduled follow-up were significantly higher in those patients who had undergone comprehensive geriatric assessment than in those who received usual care (odds ratio=1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28; P=0.003)).

Subgroup analysis was undertaken, based on the type of model of comprehensive geriatric assessment performed. Two broad types of model were identified: assessment in designated wards by a coordinated specialist team; and assessment by mobile teams wherever the patient was admitted. The test of heterogeneity for “ward” gave χ2=17.66, df=13, P=0.17, I2=26% while that for “team” gave χ2=1.86, df=3, P=0.60, I2=0%.

The subtotal estimate for “ward” indicated that comprehensive geriatric assessment was significantly more likely to result in patients being in their own homes at the end of scheduled follow-up …

Get access to this article and all of bmj.com for the next 14 days

Sign up for a 14 day free trial today

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

Article access

Article access for 1 day

Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

* Prices do not include VAT

THIS WEEK'S POLL