Open Access
Open access
volume 15 issue 1 publication number 35

The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses

Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2015-04-14
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR1.669
CiteScore6.6
Impact factor3.4
ISSN14712288
Epidemiology
Health Informatics
Abstract
Estimated effects vary across studies, partly because of random sampling error and partly because of heterogeneity. In meta-analysis, the fraction of variance that is due to heterogeneity is estimated by the statistic I2. We calculate the bias of I2, focusing on the situation where the number of studies in the meta-analysis is small. Small meta-analyses are common; in the Cochrane Library, the median number of studies per meta-analysis is 7 or fewer. We use Mathematica software to calculate the expectation and bias of I2. I2 has a substantial bias when the number of studies is small. The bias is positive when the true fraction of heterogeneity is small, but the bias is typically negative when the true fraction of heterogeneity is large. For example, with 7 studies and no true heterogeneity, I2 will overestimate heterogeneity by an average of 12 percentage points, but with 7 studies and 80 percent true heterogeneity, I2 can underestimate heterogeneity by an average of 28 percentage points. Biases of 12–28 percentage points are not trivial when one considers that, in the Cochrane Library, the median I2 estimate is 21 percent. The point estimate I2 should be interpreted cautiously when a meta-analysis has few studies. In small meta-analyses, confidence intervals should supplement or replace the biased point estimate I2.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Journal of Robotic Surgery
19 publications, 2%
PLoS ONE
16 publications, 1.69%
Medicine (United States)
12 publications, 1.27%
BMJ Open
12 publications, 1.27%
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
9 publications, 0.95%
Journal of Clinical Medicine
9 publications, 0.95%
Nutrients
9 publications, 0.95%
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
9 publications, 0.95%
Journal of Affective Disorders
8 publications, 0.84%
Educational Psychology Review
6 publications, 0.63%
Frontiers in Oncology
6 publications, 0.63%
Nature Communications
6 publications, 0.63%
F1000Research
5 publications, 0.53%
Journal of Psychiatric Research
5 publications, 0.53%
Advances in Nutrition
5 publications, 0.53%
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
5 publications, 0.53%
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
5 publications, 0.53%
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
5 publications, 0.53%
Cureus
5 publications, 0.53%
Scientific Reports
4 publications, 0.42%
Journal of Medical Internet Research
4 publications, 0.42%
Neuropsychology Review
4 publications, 0.42%
Frontiers in Medicine
4 publications, 0.42%
Frontiers in Pharmacology
4 publications, 0.42%
Diagnostics
4 publications, 0.42%
Sports Medicine
4 publications, 0.42%
Translational Psychiatry
4 publications, 0.42%
BMC Cancer
4 publications, 0.42%
Clinical Psychology Review
4 publications, 0.42%
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

Publishers

50
100
150
200
250
Elsevier
230 publications, 24.26%
Springer Nature
185 publications, 19.51%
Wiley
79 publications, 8.33%
MDPI
71 publications, 7.49%
SAGE
48 publications, 5.06%
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
46 publications, 4.85%
Taylor & Francis
42 publications, 4.43%
Frontiers Media S.A.
35 publications, 3.69%
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
25 publications, 2.64%
BMJ
22 publications, 2.32%
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
20 publications, 2.11%
Oxford University Press
18 publications, 1.9%
F1000 Research
8 publications, 0.84%
JMIR Publications
8 publications, 0.84%
American Medical Association (AMA)
7 publications, 0.74%
Cambridge University Press
7 publications, 0.74%
American Psychological Association (APA)
7 publications, 0.74%
Emerald
5 publications, 0.53%
Mary Ann Liebert
5 publications, 0.53%
S. Karger AG
4 publications, 0.42%
Impact Journals
3 publications, 0.32%
3 publications, 0.32%
Royal College of General Practitioners
3 publications, 0.32%
eLife Sciences Publications
3 publications, 0.32%
American Society for Microbiology
3 publications, 0.32%
Environmental Health Perspectives
2 publications, 0.21%
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
2 publications, 0.21%
American Society for Nutrition
2 publications, 0.21%
American Chemical Society (ACS)
2 publications, 0.21%
50
100
150
200
250
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
948
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
von Hippel P. T. The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses // BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2015. Vol. 15. No. 1. 35
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
von Hippel P. T. The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses // BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2015. Vol. 15. No. 1. 35
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z
TI - The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses
T2 - BMC Medical Research Methodology
AU - von Hippel, Paul T.
PY - 2015
DA - 2015/04/14
PB - Springer Nature
IS - 1
VL - 15
PMID - 25880989
SN - 1471-2288
ER -
BibTex
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2015_von Hippel,
author = {Paul T. von Hippel},
title = {The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses},
journal = {BMC Medical Research Methodology},
year = {2015},
volume = {15},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
month = {apr},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z},
number = {1},
pages = {35},
doi = {10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z}
}