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

Thilo Welz

Thilo Welz contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsComputation

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close 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)

preprint2023arXiv

The impact of neglected confounding and interactions in mixed-effects meta-regression

Analysts seldom include interaction terms in meta-regression model, what can introduce bias if an interaction is present. We illustrate this in the current paper by re-analyzing an example from research on acute heart failure, where neglecting an interaction might have led to erroneous inference and conclusions. Moreover, we perform a brief simulation study based on this example highlighting the effects caused by omitting or unnecessarily including interaction terms. Based on our results, we recommend to always include interaction terms in mixed-effects meta-regression models, when such interactions are plausible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Cluster-Robust Estimators for Bivariate Mixed-Effects Meta-Regression

Meta-analyses frequently include trials that report multiple effect sizes based on a common set of study participants. These effect sizes will generally be correlated. Cluster-robust variance-covariance estimators are a fruitful approach for synthesizing dependent effects. However, when the number of studies is small, state-of-the-art robust estimators can yield inflated Type 1 errors. We present two new cluster-robust estimators, in order to improve small sample performance. For both new estimators the idea is to transform the estimated variances of the residuals using only the diagonal entries of the hat matrix. Our proposals are asymptotically equivalent to previously suggested cluster-robust estimators such as the bias reduced linearization approach. We apply the methods to real world data and compare and contrast their performance in an extensive simulation study. We focus on bivariate meta-regression, although the approaches can be applied more generally.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Fisher transformation based Confidence Intervals of Correlations in Fixed- and Random-Effects Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses of correlation coefficients are an important technique to integrate results from many cross-sectional and longitudinal research designs. Uncertainty in pooled estimates is typically assessed with the help of confidence intervals, which can double as hypothesis tests for two-sided hypotheses about the underlying correlation. A standard approach to construct confidence intervals for the main effect is the Hedges-Olkin-Vevea Fisher-z (HOVz) approach, which is based on the Fisher-z transformation. Results from previous studies (Field, 2005; Hafdahl and Williams, 2009), however, indicate that in random-effects models the performance of the HOVz confidence interval can be unsatisfactory. To this end, we propose improvements of the HOVz approach, which are based on enhanced variance estimators for the main effect estimate. In order to study the coverage of the new confidence intervals in both fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis models, we perform an extensive simulation study, comparing them to established approaches. Data were generated via a truncated normal and beta distribution model. The results show that our newly proposed confidence intervals based on a Knapp-Hartung-type variance estimator or robust heteroscedasticity consistent sandwich estimators in combination with the integral z-to-r transformation (Hafdahl, 2009) provide more accurate coverage than existing approaches in most scenarios, especially in the more appropriate beta distribution simulation model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access