Timeline for Are there good alternatives to Cochran's Q test for heterogeneity in meta-analysis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 28, 2019 at 16:02 | history | suggested | MarianD | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Meaningful text in a link, some fixes, formatting.
|
| Jul 28, 2019 at 14:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 28, 2019 at 16:02 | |||||
| Jul 24, 2019 at 9:58 | history | edited | Frustrated | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 8:00 | history | edited | Frustrated | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
details
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 7:35 | comment | added | Frustrated | I will edit to make it clearer. | |
| Jul 23, 2019 at 13:45 | comment | added | antonio | Thanks, not sure I'm following though. Do you mean a ratio between the goodness of fit of e.g. model 1 (random effects) and model 2 (fixed effects)? I think this would give the overall variability but includes sampling, not just differences in treatment effects. Is this right? Would you know of references were this is used? | |
| Jul 22, 2019 at 19:10 | history | answered | Frustrated | CC BY-SA 4.0 |