Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Under the random effects model for meta-analysis, confidence intervals for the overall effect are typically constructed using quantiles of the standard normal distribution. We discuss confidence intervals based on both the standard normal distribution and the t-distribution, in conjunction with several methods of estimating the heterogeneity variance for a standardized mean difference, and we compare the empirical coverage probabilities of the intervals using simulation. The coverage probabilities of intervals based on an approximate t-statistic are higher than the coverage probabilities for the standard normal intervals, and are very close to the specified confidence level even for small meta-analysis sample size. Moreover, intervals based on the approximate t-statistic appear relatively robust to different methods of estimating the heterogeneity variance, unlike the normal intervals. Thus, we conclude that confidence intervals based on the t-statistic are superior to the standard normal confidence intervals for a standardized mean difference, and should be used by practitioners in place of the normal intervals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sidik et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: