Conventional random-effects models in meta-analysis rely on large sample approximations instead of exact small sample results. While random-effects methods produce efficient estimates and confidence intervals for the summary effect have correct coverage when the number of studies is sufficiently large, we demonstrate that conventional methods…

Meta-analyses have become the gold standard for synthesizing evidence from multiple clinical trials, and they are especially useful when outcomes are rare or adverse since individual trials often lack sufficient power to detect a treatment effect. However, when zero events are observed in one or both treatment arms in a trial, commonly used…

Meta-analyses are typically used to estimate the overall/mean of an outcome of interest. However, inference about between-study variability, which is typically modelled using a between-study variance parameter, is usually an additional aim. The DerSimonian and Laird method, currently widely used by default to estimate the between-study variance,…

Moment-based estimators of the between-study variance are very popular when performing random effects meta-analyses. This type of estimation has many advantages including computational and conceptual simplicity. Furthermore, by using these estimators in large samples, valid meta-analyses can be performed without the assumption that the treatment…

A problem that is frequently encountered during the systematic review process is when studies that meet the inclusion criteria do not provide the appropriate numerical estimates to include in a meta-analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, a method has been suggested by Di Pietrantonj for reconstructing the 2 × 2 table when the Odds Ratio…