Meta-analysis with a single study

Effect sizes typically vary among studies of the same intervention. In a random effects meta-analysis, this source of variation is taken into account, at least to some extent. However, when we have only one study, the heterogeneity remains hidden and unaccounted for. Treating the study-level effect as if it is the population-level effect leads to underestimation of the uncertainty. We propose an empirical Bayesian approach to address this problem. We start by estimating the distribution of the population-level effects and heterogeneity among 1635 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Using both synthetic data and cross-validation, we assess the consequences of using these estimated distributions as prior information for the analysis of single trials. We find that our Bayesian "meta-analyses of single studies" perform much better than naively assuming non-varying effects. The prior on the heterogeneity results in better quantification of the uncertainty. The prior on the treatment effect substantially reduces the mean squared error both for estimating the study-level and population-level effects. For the latter, this reduction is equivalent to doubling the sample size.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2025-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802251380628
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

Meta-analysis with a single study

Witold Więcek, Erik W. van Zwet, Andrew Gelman
1 citations
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
1.40
article

Meta-analysis with a single study

Witold Więcek, Erik W. van Zwet, Andrew Gelman
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Effect sizes typically vary among studies of the same intervention. In a random effects meta-analysis, this source of variation is taken into account, at least to some extent. However, when we have only one study, the heterogeneity remains hidden and unaccounted for. Treating the study-level effect as if it is the population-level effect leads to underestimation of the uncertainty. We propose an empirical Bayesian approach to address this problem. We start by estimating the distribution of the population-level effects and heterogeneity among 1635 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Using both synthetic data and cross-validation, we assess the consequences of using these estimated distributions as prior information for the analysis of single trials. We find that our Bayesian "meta-analyses of single studies" perform much better than naively assuming non-varying effects. The prior on the heterogeneity results in better quantification of the uncertainty. The prior on the treatment effect substantially reduces the mean squared error both for estimating the study-level and population-level effects. For the latter, this reduction is equivalent to doubling the sample size.

Statistical Methods in Medical ResearchVol. 34(12)
Leiden University Medical Center (NL), University of Chicago (US), Columbia University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
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.