Reference health
Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails?
32/32 checkable references clean · checked 2026-07-23
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
3 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 32 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::AID-SIM235>3.0.CO;2-V
Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods
resolves10.1002/jrsm.1162
Approximate confidence intervals for moment‐based estimators of the between‐study variance in random effects meta‐analysis
resolves10.1002/sim.3428
The exact distribution of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic in one‐way random effects meta‐analysis
resolves10.1002/jrsm.1079
Meta‐analysis inside and outside particle physics: convergence using the path of least resistance?
resolves10.1016/j.jspi.2009.09.017
How does the DerSimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts?
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.012
Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data
resolves10.1002/sim.6381
Predictive distributions for between‐study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta‐analysis
resolves10.1002/sim.791
On tests of the overall treatment effect in meta‐analysis with normally distributed responses
resolves10.1002/sim.6879
Hartung–Knapp method is not always conservative compared with fixed‐effect meta‐analysis
resolves10.1002/sim.6632
Misunderstandings about <i>Q</i> and ‘Cochran's <i>Q</i> test' in meta‐analysis
resolves10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004
Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update
resolves10.1037/met0000023
A comparison of procedures to test for moderators in mixed-effects meta-regression models.
resolves10.1186/1471-2288-11-41
Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Qstatistics
resolves10.1080/01621459.1974.10480222
Empirical Bayes Methods Applied to Estimating Fire Alarm Probabilities
resolves10.1186/1471-2288-14-103
Methods for calculating confidence and credible intervals for the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models
resolves10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::AID-SIM494>3.0.CO;2-G
INCORPORATING VARIABILITY IN ESTIMATES OF HETEROGENEITY IN THE RANDOM EFFECTS MODEL IN META-ANALYSIS
resolves10.1002/sim.2481
The power of the standard test for the presence of heterogeneity in meta-analysis
resolves10.1002/sim.3487
A re‐evaluation of the ‘quantile approximation method’ for random effects meta‐analysis
resolves10.1002/jrsm.54
On the moments of Cochran's <i>Q</i> statistic under the null hypothesis, with application to the meta‐analysis of risk difference
resolves10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01442.x
Testing for Homogeneity in Meta-Analysis I. The One-Parameter Case: Standardized Mean Difference
resolves10.1002/jrsm.1164
Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.013
Extreme between-study homogeneity in meta-analyses could offer useful insights
The 3 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedHardy R, Thompson SG. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects. Control Clin Trials. 1996; 15:619–629.
no DOI — not checkedCasella G, Berger RL. Statistical Inference. Duxbury: Pacrific Gove USA; 2002.
no DOI — not checkedViechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010; 3:1–49.
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-07-23 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1186/s12874-016-0219-y"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1186/s12874-016-0219-y/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1186/s12874-016-0219-y)