Skip to content
Prev 5156 / 5636 Next

[R-meta] [EXT] R-sig-meta-analysis Digest, Vol 82, Issue 31

Thanks for the advice, Michael.  Typically, my students who are running unweighted analyses have no variance estimates for their effect sizes.  Since vi is required, we need to put something into the vi column.  Seeing the variation in 95% CIs around the mean effect depending on what vi values I used was concerning.  Does anyone have advice for the best practice for unweighted analyses when vi values are not available?  Thanks in advance.  alan

-----Original Message-----
From: R-sig-meta-analysis <r-sig-meta-analysis-bounces at r-project.org> On Behalf Of r-sig-meta-analysis-request at r-project.org
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:19 AM
To: r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org
Subject: [EXT] R-sig-meta-analysis Digest, Vol 82, Issue 31

CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.

Send R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list submissions to
        r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-meta-analysis
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        r-sig-meta-analysis-request at r-project.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        r-sig-meta-analysis-owner at r-project.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of R-sig-meta-analysis digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. unweighted analysis questions (Alan Wilson)
   2. Re: unweighted analysis questions (Michael Dewey)
   3. Re:  Prediction Intervals for estimates of random slope
      rma.mv model with predict.rma() (Zac Robinson)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 14:51:06 +0000
From: Alan Wilson <wilson at auburn.edu>
To: "r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org"
        <r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org>
Subject: [R-meta] unweighted analysis questions
Message-ID:
        <MW2PR1901MB4697CAA9F67A1C8E78FCBEE9BF322 at MW2PR1901MB4697.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hey everyone - I have two questions regarding unweighted analyses.

1) Using the suggested code for unweighted analysis (rma(yi, vi, method="FE", data=dat, weighted=FALSE)) provides the same main effect but different 95% CIs when using the same or different vi values across studies.  I also found different 95% CIs when testing two different vi values (1 vs 100) that were the same across studies.  I also found that changing weighted=FALSE to weighted=TRUE provided same 95% CIs when using the same dataset.  Any idea what is causing the variation in 95% CIs?  What is best for unweighted analyses?

2) Any suggested approaches for publication bias checks for unweighted analyses?  I was thinking funnel plots of effect size and sample size.

Thanks for any advice.  alan





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:27:00 +0000
From: Michael Dewey <lists at dewey.myzen.co.uk>
To: R Special Interest Group for Meta-Analysis
        <r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org>
Cc: Alan Wilson <wilson at auburn.edu>
Subject: Re: [R-meta] unweighted analysis questions
Message-ID: <b5c372ec-dbde-1825-b980-1974e04e70c5 at dewey.myzen.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Dear Alan
On 21/03/2024 14:51, Alan Wilson via R-sig-meta-analysis wrote:
That is what I would have expected. Although the vi are not being used as weights they do still tell you about the variability. If you combine lots of very imprecise studies you would not expect to get the same overall CI as combining lots of very precise studies. Otherwise you would be getting a free lunch.
Other people will probably pitch in with evidence-based ideas here but I would go for sqrt sample size I think.


Michael
--
Michael




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:18:41 -0400
From: Zac Robinson <zacrobinson2015 at gmail.com>
To: R Special Interest Group for Meta-Analysis
        <r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org>
Subject: Re: [R-meta]  Prediction Intervals for estimates of random
        slope rma.mv model with predict.rma()
Message-ID:
        <CALM2kOaeKnJ4z-Kwbu9uTyN8eU=rZuK87iD5aNo5_agi47N-fA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Wolfgang,

Apologies for the incorrect method to reply - hopefully got it right this
time. If I'm understanding things correctly - the coding can (potentially)
end up giving me what I'm after, but I'm just specifying the sigma / sd for
the prediction interval incorrectly (i.e., the variances can't just be
summed).

Thus, I guess my follow up question is - how would you recommend going
about this calculation? The closest thing I can find in the literature with
a similar variance calculation is in the context of R2 from Johnson et al.,
where they calculate the "mean random effects variance" which seems like it
could be useful here:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12225

Let me know what you think and thank you for your time and expertise,

Zac

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 9:23?AM Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (NP) <
wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl> wrote:

            
------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list @ R-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org
To manage your subscription to this mailing list, go to:
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-meta-analysis


------------------------------

End of R-sig-meta-analysis Digest, Vol 82, Issue 31
***************************************************
Message-ID: <MW2PR1901MB4697CFF873DE82EA6B5B1393BF362@MW2PR1901MB4697.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5152.546.1711037955.1252.r-sig-meta-analysis@r-project.org>