Skip to main content
Mail a PDF copy of this page to:
(Your email address will not be added to a mailing list)
Show menu

Meta-analysis: generic inverse variance method

Next selectMeta-analysis
Next selectGeneric inverse variance method


A meta-analysis integrates the quantitative findings from separate but similar studies and provides a numerical estimate of the overall effect of interest (Petrie et al., 2003).

It is advised to use one of the following specific meta-analysis procedures for continuous and dichotomous outcome data:

If none of the above procedures is applicable or suitable, you can use the "generic inverse variance method" procedure. In this procedure estimates and their standard errors are entered directly into MedCalc. For ratio measures of intervention effect, the data should be entered as natural logarithms (for example as a log Hazard ratio and the standard error of the log Hazard ratio).

In the inverse variance method the weight given to each study is the inverse of the variance of the effect estimate (i.e. one over the square of its standard error). Thus larger studies are given more weight than smaller studies, which have larger standard errors. This choice of weight minimizes the imprecision (uncertainty) of the pooled effect estimate.

How to enter data

The data of different studies can be entered as follows in the spreadsheet:

How to enter data for meta-analysis (generic inverse variance method)

Required input

Meta-analysis (generic inverse variance method) dialog box

Studies: a variable containing an identification of the different studies.


Filter: a filter to include only a selected subgroup of studies in the meta-analysis.



Meta-analysis (generic inverse variance method) results

The program lists the results of the individual studies included in the meta-analysis: the estimate and 95% confidence interval.

The pooled value for the estimate, with 95% CI, is given both for the Fixed effects model and the Random effects model.

Fixed and random effects model

Under the fixed effects model, it is assumed that the studies share a common true effect, and the summary effect is an estimate of the common effect size.

Under the random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird) the true effects in the studies are assumed to vary between studies and the summary effect is the weighted average of the effects reported in the different studies (Borenstein et al., 2009).

The random effects model will tend to give a more conservative estimate (i.e. with wider confidence interval), but the results from the two models usually agree where there is no heterogeneity. See Meta-analysis: introduction for interpretation of the heterogeneity statistics Cohran's Q and I2. When heterogeneity is present the random effects model should be the preferred model.

See Meta-analysis: introduction for interpretation of the different publication bias tests.

Forest plot

The Forest plot shows the estimate (with 95% CI) found in the different studies included in the meta-analysis, and the overall effect with 95% CI.

Meta-analysis (generic inverse variance method) forest plot

Funnel plot

A funnel plot is a graphical tool for detecting bias in meta-analysis. See Meta-analysis: introduction.

Meta-analysis (generic inverse variance method) funnel plot

Note that when the option "Data are entered as natural logarithms" was selected (see above), then the Standard Errors on the Y-axis are natural logarithms.


See also