High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analysis of continuous than binary outcomes

Abstract

ObjectivesWe compared the distribution of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of binary and continuous outcomes. Study Design and SettingWe searched citations in MEDLINE and Cochrane databases for meta-analyses of randomized trials published in 2012 that reported a measure of heterogeneity of either binary or continuous outcomes. Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening and data abstraction. We evaluated the distribution of I2 in meta-analyses of binary and continuous outcomes and explored hypotheses explaining the difference in distributions. ResultsAfter full-text screening, we selected 671 meta-analyses evaluating 557 binary and 352 continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity as assessed by I2 proved higher in continuous than in binary outcomes: the proportion of continuous and binary outcomes reporting an I2 of 0% was 34% vs. 52%, respectively, and reporting an I2 of 60–100% was 39% vs. 14%. In continuous but not binary outcomes, I2 increased with larger number of studies included in a meta-analysis. Increased precision and sample size do not explain the larger I2 found in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes with a larger number of studies. ConclusionsMeta-analyses evaluating continuous outcomes showed substantially higher I2 than meta-analyses of binary outcomes. Results suggest differing standards for interpreting I2 in continuous vs. binary outcomes may be appropriate.