Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Nov;45(Pt A):139-45.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002. Epub 2015 Sep 4.

Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited

Rebecca DerSimonian  1 , Nan Laird  2
Affiliations

Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited

Rebecca DerSimonian et al. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov.

Abstract

In this paper, we revisit a 1986 article we published in this Journal, Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials, where we introduced a random-effects model to summarize the evidence about treatment efficacy from a number of related clinical trials. Because of its simplicity and ease of implementation, our approach has been widely used (with more than 12,000 citations to date) and the "DerSimonian and Laird method" is now often referred to as the 'standard approach' or a 'popular' method for meta-analysis in medical and clinical research. The method is especially useful for providing an overall effect estimate and for characterizing the heterogeneity of effects across a series of studies. Here, we review the background that led to the original 1986 article, briefly describe the random-effects approach for meta-analysis, explore its use in various settings and trends over time and recommend a refinement to the method using a robust variance estimator for testing overall effect. We conclude with a discussion of repurposing the method for Big Data meta-analysis and Genome Wide Association Studies for studying the importance of genetic variants in complex diseases.

Keywords: Big Data; Clinical trials; Genome Wide Association Studies; Heterogeneity; Meta-analysis; Random-effects model.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Random Effects Notation and Model
Figure 2
Figure 2
Method of Analysis
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 6
Hypothesis Testing with the Random Effects Model
Figure 7
Figure 7
INSIG2 Variant and Obesity
Figure 8
Figure 8
INSIG2 Rs7566605 Association with Obesity Meta-Analysis Results for Adults
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. DerSimonian R, Laird NM. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1986;7:177–188. - PubMed
    1. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher. 1976;5:3–8.
    1. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1978;1:377–386.
    1. Mosteller F. The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. The Future of Children. 1995;5(2):113–127. - PubMed
    1. Mosteller F, Light RJ, Sachs JA. Sustaining Inquiry in Education: Lessons from Skill Grouping and Class Size. Harvard Educational Review. 1996;66(4):797–842.