[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.159.197.114. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 459
Citations 0
Comment & Response
January 27, 2015

Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis of FDG-PET Studies to Diagnose Lung Cancer—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
  • 2Department of Thoracic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
JAMA. 2015;313(4):419-420. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.16485

In Reply Dr Mills and colleagues wish to deemphasize I2 statistics. We agree that I2 statistics can be problematic and that the naive pooled model (ie, the model assuming no study-to-study heterogeneity) is often inappropriate for meta-analyses. This is why, in our study, I2 statistics were only reported for completeness and never factored into our analysis.

First, Mills and colleagues assume that I2 statistics played a prominent role in our analysis. They did not. They were reported in accordance with PRISMA1 guidelines but served no other function. We quantified the extent of study-to-study heterogeneity with a component of variance from the best-fit random-effects logistic regression model.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×