Critical interpretation of Cochran's Q test depends on power and prior assumptions about heterogeneity is a research paper published in Research Synthesis Methods (2010). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.718. It has been cited 119 times.
We describe how an appropriate interpretation of the Q-test depends on its power to detect a given typical amount of between-study variance (τ(2)) as well as prior beliefs on heterogeneity. We illustrate these concepts in an evaluation of 1011 meta-analyses of clinical trials with ⩾4 studies and binary outcomes. These concepts can be seen as an application of the Bayes theorem. Across the 1011 meta-analyses, power to detect typical heterogeneity was low in most situations. Thus, usually a non-significant Q test did not change perceptibly prior convictions on heterogeneity. Conversely, significant results for the Q test typically augmented considerably the probability of heterogeneity. The posterior probability of heterogeneity depends on what τ(2) we want to detect. With the same approach, one may also estimate the posterior probability for the presence of heterogeneity that is large enough to annul statistically significant summary effects; that is half the average within-study variance of the combined studies; and that is able to change the summary effect estimate of the meta-analysis by 20%. The discussed analyses are exploratory, and may depend heavily on prior assumptions when power for the Q-test is low. Statistical heterogeneity in meta-analyses should be cautiously interpreted considering the power to detect a specific τ(2) and prior assumptions about the presence of heterogeneity. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.718
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.