How to quantify between-study heterogeneity in single-arm evidence synthesis?—It depends!

Although different heterogeneity variance estimators produce substantially different heterogeneity variance estimates, too little attention is paid to selecting a suitable heterogeneity variance estimator in single-arm evidence synthesis. Based on our literature review, we conclude that the awareness of different heterogeneity variance estimators and their properties needs to be strengthened in practice. Given that it is rarely appropriate to rely on a single heterogeneity variance estimator, we suggest careful consideration and evaluation of a wider range of plausible estimators in a sensitivity analysis before drawing a final conclusion about the meta-analysis results.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Systematic Reviews
Published
2025-07-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02831-1
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.40
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How to quantify between-study heterogeneity in single-arm evidence synthesis?—It depends!

Ulrike Held, Stefania Iaquinto, Beatrice Latal, Lea Bührer et al.
1 citations
Systematic Reviews
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
1.40
article

How to quantify between-study heterogeneity in single-arm evidence synthesis?—It depends!

Ulrike Held, Stefania Iaquinto, Beatrice Latal, Lea Bührer, Maria Feldmann
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Although different heterogeneity variance estimators produce substantially different heterogeneity variance estimates, too little attention is paid to selecting a suitable heterogeneity variance estimator in single-arm evidence synthesis. Based on our literature review, we conclude that the awareness of different heterogeneity variance estimators and their properties needs to be strengthened in practice. Given that it is rarely appropriate to rely on a single heterogeneity variance estimator, we suggest careful consideration and evaluation of a wider range of plausible estimators in a sensitivity analysis before drawing a final conclusion about the meta-analysis results.

Systematic ReviewsVol. 14(1)
ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences (CH), University of Zurich (CH), Prevention Institute (US), University Children's Hospital Zurich (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
1.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

How to quantify between-study heterogeneity in single-arm evidence synthesis?—It depends! — Ulrike Held, Stefania Iaquinto, et al. · Systematic Reviews (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS