[R-meta] Why does rma.mv does not show the same results as robumeta?

Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP) wo||g@ng@v|echtb@uer @end|ng |rom m@@@tr|chtun|ver@|ty@n|
Sun May 23 20:59:17 CEST 2021

I would suggest to take a look at:



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cátia Ferreira De Oliveira [mailto:cmfo500 using york.ac.uk]
>Sent: Sunday, 23 May, 2021 19:54
>To: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
>Cc: r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
>Subject: Re: [R-meta] Why does rma.mv does not show the same results as robumeta?
>Thank you for your quick response!
>Is there any good source of information on which option would be the most adequate
>for meta-analysis with dependencies, i.e. whether one should just use a) rma.mv;
>b) rma.mv + robust() or clubSandwich() or c) robumeta?
>Thank you!
>Best wishes,
>On Sun, 23 May 2021 at 17:34, Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
><wolfgang.viechtbauer using maastrichtuniversity.nl> wrote:
>Dear Cátia,
>robumeta uses robust variance estimation. If you want to do the same based on an
>'rma.mv' object, you need to use robust() or, even better, the clubSandwich
>package. See here for examples:
>However, the results still won't be exactly the same. There is at least one post
>in the archives that discusses the somewhat subtle differences. If you go here:
>you can add some appropriate search strings to find those posts (I believe it was
>James Pustejovksy that explained this quite thoroughly, so you might want to
>include 'James' in your search terms).
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: R-sig-meta-analysis [mailto:r-sig-meta-analysis-bounces using r-project.org] On
>>Behalf Of Cátia Ferreira De Oliveira
>>Sent: Sunday, 23 May, 2021 3:51
>>To: r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
>>Subject: [R-meta] Why does rma.mv does not show the same results as robumeta?
>>I have conducted a meta-analysis that I am currently analysing looking at the
>>relationship between memory and language/literacy and multiple studies
>>more than one effect size. I have preregistered doing the analyses in robumeta.
>>But I am interested in checking how the results converge across packages as I am
>>tempted to use metafor for my next meta-analysis given how easy it is to plot,
>>check for publication bias, etc with this package. When running both models, they
>>produced different results and I am a bit unsure as to why they are different. I
>>know if I look at the estimates it is not that different, but what surprises me
>>the fact that DD has a higher estimate in one model but in the other it is the
>>group. Maybe I have done something wrong. Does anyone have any thoughts?
>># multilevel model looking at the relationship between memory and
>># multiple studies have contributed multiple effect sizes
>>rma.model <- rma.mv(yi, vi,  mods =  ~ factor(Group)-1,  random= ~ 1 |
>>Study/effectsizeID, data=Data)
>>Multivariate Meta-Analysis Model (k = 414; method: REML)
>>  logLik  Deviance       AIC       BIC      AICc
>>-13.0662   26.1323   36.1323   56.2253   36.2805
>>Variance Components:
>>            estim    sqrt  nlvls  fixed              factor
>>sigma^2.1  0.0109  0.1044     37     no               Study
>>sigma^2.2  0.0082  0.0903    414     no  Study/effectsizeID
>>Test for Residual Heterogeneity:
>>QE(df = 411) = 588.9613, p-val < .0001
>>Test of Moderators (coefficients 1:3):
>>QM(df = 3) = 11.1370, p-val = 0.0110
>>Model Results:
>>robu.model <- robu(formula = yi ~ factor(Group)-1, data = Data,
>>                       studynum = Study, var.eff.size = vi,
>>                       rho = .8, small = TRUE)
>>RVE: Correlated Effects Model with Small-Sample Corrections
>>Model: yi ~ factor(Group) - 1
>>Number of studies = 37
>>Number of outcomes = 414 (min = 1 , mean = 11.2 , median = 6 , max = 52 )
>>Rho = 0.8
>>I.sq = 52.35398
>>Tau.sq = 0.02918897
>>Thank you!
>>Best wishes,

More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list