Message-ID: <e2d79865c39f4638805796f5df88f827@UM-MAIL3214.unimaas.nl>
Date: 2023-03-21T16:35:48Z
From: Wolfgang Viechtbauer
Subject: [R-meta] Meta - Bug with REML or small N?
In-Reply-To: <CAOYO_yA+-k8TnaSNKZW=tHK0zY3hj5rw_r8zxxbzuYuF70LKkw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jorge,
Could you do
dput(dat_vo2)
and paste the resulting code here?
Best,
Wolfgang
From: R-sig-meta-analysis [mailto:r-sig-meta-analysis-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Teixeira via R-sig-meta-analysis
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March, 2023 15:57
To: R meta
Cc: Jorge Teixeira
Subject: [R-meta] Meta - Bug with REML or small N?
Hi.
Let me know if you need me to provide the data for this example. Screenshots in the bottom.
I ran this MA with REML, and the weight for random and common effects are exactly the same! Never saw anything like this.? t2 values also don?t look plausible.
#1
vo2 <- metacont(en ?, em, esd, cn, cm, csd, study, method.tau = "REML", prediction = TRUE, data = dat_vo2, sm = "MD")
vo2
Is this a bug or a particular issue of low number of studies and low sample size?
#2
vo2 <- metacont(en ?, em, esd, cn, cm, csd, study, method.tau = "DL", prediction = TRUE, data = dat_vo2, sm = "MD")
vo2
I ran this with DL estimator and weights and t2 are plausible. I also ran other similar MA using REML and this was all okay.
#1 using SMD instead of MD also looks fine.
Thanks,
Jorge
REML:
DL: