+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: fixed vs mixed random effects model

  1. #1
    Points: 450, Level: 8
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 50

    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    fixed vs mixed random effects model




    greetings,
    I am reviewing some meta-analysis and have a question regarding fixed vs random effects models.
    2 reviews have used basically the same RCT's for their meta analysis.
    One uses a mixed random effects model (Dersimonian and Laird which I haven't head of) the other fixed. The mixed effect paper claims they chose this as they believed that heterogeneity of an I squared (sorry no idea how to insert superscript here) of 25% was too high to consider being chance. The other paper considered the I sq statistic significant for heterogeneity at 50% which seems more in line with other papers I have read and so used a fixed effects model where it was less than 50%. Is one more right than the other? Or is it fine to set whatever level of significance for heterogeneity you feel appropriate?

  2. #2
    Cookie Scientist
    Points: 13,431, Level: 75
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 219
    Jake's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 584 Times in 438 Posts

    Re: fixed vs mixed random effects model

    You should probably just use the random effects model any time the heterogeneity estimate is greater than 0. And honestly, even if the estimate is 0 it's probably still fine to use the random effects model -- it's not technically necessary there, but there isn't really any notable loss in efficiency. The point being that random effects should probably just be the default choice, and the decision to use fixed effects instead is what begs for special justification.
    “In God we trust. All others must bring data.”
    ~W. Edwards Deming

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jake For This Useful Post:

    rogojel (02-06-2017), Roundtoit (02-06-2017)

  4. #3
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,413, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    7,004
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,186 Times in 1,147 Posts

    Re: fixed vs mixed random effects model

    I agree with Jake's last line, "the decision to use fixed effects instead is what begs for special justification".


    Typically in meta-analysis an I^2 of 50% or greater is typically used, but you can't fault someone for saying that believed there could be heterogeneity and they are going to use random effects. Controlling for random effects serves to account for the differences between the study samples, meaning they add another piece to the SE. This translates to a lower risk of a type I error. The Sersimonian Laird approach is very common, I would say it is what is usually used, even if authors don't note its use.
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to hlsmith For This Useful Post:

    Roundtoit (02-06-2017)

  6. #4
    Points: 450, Level: 8
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 50

    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: fixed vs mixed random effects model

    Thank you!! that certainly makes sense to me now. Regardless of the similarity of the RCT's studied it is difficult for me to really believe that any two studies are anything but heterogeneous, unless its a replicated study and even then time and center etc cant possibly be the same to any real degree.
    Much appreciated

  7. #5
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,413, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    7,004
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,186 Times in 1,147 Posts

    Re: fixed vs mixed random effects model


    Correction on my last point, random effects works to address differences in study sample, but I neglected to also mention it also needs to be implemented if study designs or procedures were different. So not just sample issues but also, just how they conducted the study.
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to hlsmith For This Useful Post:

    Roundtoit (02-07-2017)

+ Reply to Thread

           




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts






Advertise on Talk Stats