Meta-analysis allows rigorous aggregation of estimates and uncertainty across multiple studies. When a given study reports multiple estimates, such as log odds ratios (ORs) or log relative risks (RRs) across exposure groups, accounting for within-study correlations improves accuracy and efficiency of meta-analytic results. Canonical approaches of Greenland-Longnecker and Hamling estimate pseudo cases and non-cases for exposure groups to obtain within-study correlations. However, currently available implementations for both methods fail on simple examples. We review both GL and Hamling methods through the lens of optimization. For ORs, we provide modifications of each approach that ensure convergence for any feasible inputs. For GL, this is achieved through a new connection to entropic minimization. For Hamling, a modification leads to a provably solvable equivalent set of equations given a specific initialization. For each, we provide implementations a guaranteed to work for any feasible input. For RRs, we show the new GL approach is always guaranteed to succeed, but any Hamling approach may fail: we give counter-examples where no solutions exist. We derive a sufficient condition on reported RRs that guarantees success when reported variances are all equal.

翻译：暂无翻译