IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/cbr72.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to check a simulation study

Author

Listed:
  • Morris, Tim P

    (MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL)

  • White, Ian R
  • Pham, Tra My
  • Quartagno, Matteo

Abstract

Simulation studies are a powerful tool in epidemiology and biostatistics, but they can be hard to conduct successfully. Sometimes unexpected results are obtained. We offer advice on how to check a simulation study when this occurs, and how to design and conduct the study to give results that are easier to check. Simulation studies should be designed to include some settings where answers are already known. They should be coded sequentially, with data generating mechanisms checked before simulated data are analysed. Results should be explored carefully, with scatterplots of standard error estimates against point estimates a powerful tool. Failed estimation and outlying estimates should be identified and avoided by changing data generating mechanisms or coding realistic hybrid analysis procedures. Finally, surprising results should be investigated by methods including considering whether sources of variation are correctly included. Following our advice may help to prevent errors and to improve the quality of published simulation studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Morris, Tim P & White, Ian R & Pham, Tra My & Quartagno, Matteo, 2023. "How to check a simulation study," OSF Preprints cbr72, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:cbr72
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/cbr72
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/63dcb8fd1e968603c2b270de/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/cbr72?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julian P. T. Higgins & Simon G. Thompson & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2009. "A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 137-159, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yeojin Chung & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Vincent Dorie & Andrew Gelman & Jingchen Liu, 2013. "A Nondegenerate Penalized Likelihood Estimator for Variance Parameters in Multilevel Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 685-709, October.
    2. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 3," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 618-640, July.
    3. Amanda Kvarven & Eirik Strømland & Conny Wollbrant & David Andersson & Magnus Johannesson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth, 2020. "The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: a meta-analytic examination of effect size and between-study heterogeneity," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 26-42, June.
    4. Nelson, Jon Paul, 2020. "Fixed-effect versus random-effects meta-analysis in economics: A study of pass-through rates for alcohol beverage excise taxes," Economics Discussion Papers 2020-1, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Ibrahim Y. Tawbe, 2023. "Environmental disclosure programs and birth weight: a meta- analysis," Working Papers 2023-02, CRESE.
    6. Alberto Aiolfi & Emanuele Asti & Emanuele Rausa & Giulia Bonavina & Gianluca Bonitta & Luigi Bonavina, 2018. "Use of C-reactive protein for the early prediction of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Shijie Ren & Jeremy E. Oakley & John W. Stevens, 2018. "Incorporating Genuine Prior Information about Between-Study Heterogeneity in Random Effects Pairwise and Network Meta-analyses," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 531-542, May.
    8. Ajaree Rayanakorn & Hooi-Leng Ser & Priyia Pusparajah & Kok-Gan Chan & Bey Hing Goh & Tahir Mehmood Khan & Surasak Saokaew & Shaun Wen Huey Lee & Learn-Han Lee, 2020. "Comparative efficacy of antibiotic(s) alone or in combination of corticosteroids in adults with acute bacterial meningitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Tomáš Havránek, 2009. "Rose Effect and the Euro: The Magic is Gone," Working Papers IES 2009/20, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Aug 2009.
    10. Ratko Peric & Zoran Nikolovski & Marco Meucci & Philippe Tadger & Carlo Ferri Marini & Francisco José Amaro-Gahete, 2022. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Association and Differences between Aerobic Threshold and Point of Optimal Fat Oxidation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-19, May.
    11. Cebiroglu, Gökhan & Hautsch, Nikolaus & Walsh, Christopher, 2019. "Revisiting the stealth trading hypothesis: Does time-varying liquidity explain the size-effect?," CFS Working Paper Series 625, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    12. Richard A Hubner & Richard D Riley & Lucinda J Billingham & Sanjay Popat, 2011. "Excision Repair Cross-Complementation Group 1 (ERCC1) Status and Lung Cancer Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies and Recommendations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-10, October.
    13. Schmidli, Heinz & Neuenschwander, Beat & Friede, Tim, 2017. "Meta-analytic-predictive use of historical variance data for the design and analysis of clinical trials," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 100-110.
    14. Anna Chaimani & Julian P T Higgins & Dimitris Mavridis & Panagiota Spyridonos & Georgia Salanti, 2013. "Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-12, October.
    15. Layan Sukik & Maryam Alyafei & Manale Harfouche & Laith J Abu-Raddad, 2019. "Herpes simplex virus type 1 epidemiology in Latin America and the Caribbean: Systematic review and meta-analytics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-20, April.
    16. Vladislav Morozov, 2022. "Inference on Extreme Quantiles of Unobserved Individual Heterogeneity," Papers 2210.08524, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    17. Trood, Michael D. & Spivak, Benjamin L. & Ogloff, James R.P., 2021. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of judicial supervision on recidivism and well-being factors of criminal offenders," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Amel Adel & Dirk Berkvens & Emmanuel Abatih & Abdelkrim Soukehal & Juana Bianchini & Claude Saegerman, 2016. "Evaluation of Immunofluorescence Antibody Test Used for the Diagnosis of Canine Leishmaniasis in the Mediterranean Basin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    19. Peter Morfeld & Kenneth A. Mundt & Linda D. Dell & Tom Sorahan & Robert J. McCunney, 2016. "Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Mortality in Three Cohorts of Carbon Black Production Workers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, March.
    20. Adam Bystrzycki & Yesul Kim & Mark Fitzgerald & Lorena Romero & Steven Clare, 2018. "Heads-Up-Displays (HUDs) and their Impact on Cognitive Load during Task Performance - A Protocol for Systematic Review," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 2(3), pages 2701-2704, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:cbr72. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.