skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

The lack of statistical power of subgroup analyses in meta-analyses: a cautionary note

Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2021-12, Vol.30, p.e78-e78, Article e78 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press ;Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. ;The Author(s) 2021 2021 The Author(s) ;ISSN: 2045-7960 ;EISSN: 2045-7979 ;DOI: 10.1017/S2045796021000664 ;PMID: 34852862

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    The lack of statistical power of subgroup analyses in meta-analyses: a cautionary note
  • Author: Cuijpers, Pim ; Griffin, Jason W. ; Furukawa, Toshi A.
  • Subjects: Humans ; Intervention ; Meta-analysis ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Nursing homes ; Research Design ; Special ; Special Article ; Statistical power ; Systematic review
  • Is Part Of: Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2021-12, Vol.30, p.e78-e78, Article e78
  • Description: One of the most used methods to examine sources of heterogeneity in meta-analyses is the so-called ‘subgroup analysis’. In a subgroup analysis, the included studies are divided into two or more subgroups, and it is tested whether the pooled effect sizes found in these subgroups differ significantly from each other. Subgroup analyses can be considered as a core component of most published meta-analyses. One important problem of subgroup analyses is the lack of statistical power to find significant differences between subgroups. In this paper, we explore the power problems of subgroup analyses in more detail, using ‘metapower’, a recently developed statistical package in R to examine power in meta-analyses, including subgroup analyses. We show that subgroup analyses require many more included studies in a meta-analysis than are needed for the main analyses. We work out an example of an ‘average’ meta-analysis, in which a subgroup analysis requires 3–4 times the number of studies that are needed for the main analysis to have sufficient power. This number of studies increases exponentially with decreasing effect sizes and when the studies are not evenly divided over the subgroups. Higher heterogeneity also requires increasing numbers of studies. We conclude that subgroup analyses remain an important method to examine potential sources of heterogeneity in meta-analyses, but that meta-analysts should keep in mind that power is very low for most subgroup analyses. As in any statistical evaluation, researchers should not rely on a test and p-value to interpret results, but should compare the confidence intervals and interpret results carefully.
  • Publisher: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  • Language: English;Italian
  • Identifier: ISSN: 2045-7960
    EISSN: 2045-7979
    DOI: 10.1017/S2045796021000664
    PMID: 34852862
  • Source: ProQuest One Psychology
    Journals@Ovid Open Access Journal Collection Rolling
    MEDLINE
    PubMed Central
    Directory of Open Access Journals
    ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait