Meta-analytic methods to test relative efficacy

Meta-analytic methods to test relative efficacy In the context of multiple treatments for a particular problem or disorder, it is important theoretically and clinically to investigate whether any one treatment is more effective than another. Typically researchers report the results of the comparison of two treatments, and the meta-analytic problem is to synthesize the various comparisons of two treatments to test the omnibus null hypothesis that the true differences of all particular pairs of treatments are zero versus the alternative that there is at least one true nonzero difference. Two tests, one proposed by Wampold et al. (Psychol. Bull. 122:203–215, 1997) based on the homogeneity of effects, and one proposed here based on the distribution of the absolute value of the effects, were investigated. Based on a Monte Carlo simulation, both tests adequately maintained nominal error rates, and both demonstrated adequate power, although the Wampold test was slightly more powerful for non-uniform alternatives. The error rates and power were essentially unchanged in the presence of random effects. The tests were illustrated with a reanalysis of two published meta-analyses (psychotherapy and antidepressants). It is concluded that both tests are viable for testing the omnibus null hypothesis of no treatment differences. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Meta-analytic methods to test relative efficacy

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/meta-analytic-methods-to-test-relative-efficacy-0gKVRexWsV
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Subject
Social Sciences, general; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11135-012-9800-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In the context of multiple treatments for a particular problem or disorder, it is important theoretically and clinically to investigate whether any one treatment is more effective than another. Typically researchers report the results of the comparison of two treatments, and the meta-analytic problem is to synthesize the various comparisons of two treatments to test the omnibus null hypothesis that the true differences of all particular pairs of treatments are zero versus the alternative that there is at least one true nonzero difference. Two tests, one proposed by Wampold et al. (Psychol. Bull. 122:203–215, 1997) based on the homogeneity of effects, and one proposed here based on the distribution of the absolute value of the effects, were investigated. Based on a Monte Carlo simulation, both tests adequately maintained nominal error rates, and both demonstrated adequate power, although the Wampold test was slightly more powerful for non-uniform alternatives. The error rates and power were essentially unchanged in the presence of random effects. The tests were illustrated with a reanalysis of two published meta-analyses (psychotherapy and antidepressants). It is concluded that both tests are viable for testing the omnibus null hypothesis of no treatment differences.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Nov 7, 2012

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off