BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Osama Almalik

Osama Almalik contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Combining dependent p-values resulting from multiple effect size homogeneity tests in meta-analysis for binary outcomes

Testing effect size homogeneity is an essential part when conducting a meta-analysis. Comparative studies of effect size homogeneity tests in case of binary outcomes are found in the literature, but no test has come out as an absolute winner. A alternative approach would be to carry out multiple effect size homogeneity tests on the same meta-analysis and combine the resulting dependent p-values. In this article we applied the correlated Lancaster method for dependent statistical tests. To investigate the proposed approach's performance, we applied eight different effect size homogeneity tests on a case study and on simulated datasets, and combined the resulting p-values. The proposed method has similar performance to that of tests based on the score function in the presence of a effect size when the number of studies is small, but outperforms these tests as the number of studies increases. However, the method's performance is sensitive to the correlation coefficient value assumed between dependent tests, and only performs well when this value is high. More research is needed to investigate the method's assumptions on correlation in case of effect size homogeneity tests, and to study the method's performance in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Simulation Models for Aggregated Data Meta-Analysis: Evaluation of Pooling Effect Sizes and Publication Biases

Simulation studies are commonly used to evaluate the performance of newly developed meta-analysis methods. For methodology that is developed for an aggregated data meta-analysis, researchers often resort to simulation of the aggregated data directly, instead of simulating individual participant data from which the aggregated data would be calculated in reality. Clearly, distributional characteristics of the aggregated data statistics may be derived from distributional assumptions of the underlying individual data, but they are often not made explicit in publications. This paper provides the distribution of the aggregated data statistics that were derived from a heteroscedastic mixed effects model for continuous individual data. As a result, we provide a procedure for directly simulating the aggregated data statistics. We also compare our distributional findings with other simulation approaches of aggregated data used in literature by describing their theoretical differences and by conducting a simulation study for three meta-analysis methods: DerSimonian and Laird's pooled estimate and the Trim & Fill and PET-PEESE method for adjustment of publication bias. We demonstrate that the choices of simulation model for aggregated data may have a relevant impact on (the conclusions of) the performance of the meta-analysis method. We recommend the use of multiple aggregated data simulation models for investigation of new methodology to determine sensitivity or otherwise make the individual participant data model explicit that would lead to the distributional choices of the aggregated data statistics used in the simulation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Copas' method is sensitive to different mechanisms of publication bias

Copas' method corrects a pooled estimate from an aggregated data meta-analysis for publication bias. Its performance has been studied for one particular mechanism of publication bias. We show through simulations that Copas' method is not robust against other realistic mechanisms. This questions the usefulness of Copas' method, since publication bias mechanisms are typically unknown in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access