EDUCATION
Fixed- vs. Random-Effects Models: 5 Tips to Get A Better Understanding .
Fixed- and random-effects models shape how meta-analyses pool study results, and they differ mainly in their assumptions about variation across studies. A fixed-effects model treats studies as estimating one shared effect, while a random-effects model assumes meaningful differences and averages a distribution of effects. These approaches assign weights differently, with fixed-effects leaning heavily on larger studies and random-effects giving smaller studies more influence. When heterogeneity is low, results from both models may look similar, but when variation is substantial, estimates can diverge. Random-effects is often preferred for its broader applicability, though fixed-effects may be suitable when a single large, credible study dominates the evidence.
Already have an account? Log in
Unlock the Full original article
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this original article
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
