Abstract
Meta-analyses are commonly performed based on random-effects models, while in certain cases one might also argue in favor of a common-effect model. One such case may be given by the example of two "study twins" that are performed according to a common (or at least very similar) protocol. Here we investigate the particular case of meta-analysis of a pair of studies, for example, summarizing the results of two confirmatory clinical trials in phaseIII of a clinical development program. Thereby, we focus on the question of to what extent homogeneity or heterogeneity may be discernible and include an empirical investigation of published ("twin") pairs of studies. A pair of estimates from two studies only provide very little evidence of homogeneity or heterogeneity of effects, and ad hoc decision criteria may often bemisleading.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
