Effects of lack of independence in meta-epidemiology Peter Herbison Preventive and Social Medicine University of Otago.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What is the relationship between…?
Advertisements

Meta-analysis: summarising data for two arm trials and other simple outcome studies Steff Lewis statistician.
Chapter 10: Estimating with Confidence
Chapter 8: Estimating with Confidence
Chapter 10: Estimating with Confidence
What is going on with psychotherapy today? Carolyn R. Fallahi, Ph. D.
Chapter 5 Producing Data
15 de Abril de A Meta-Analysis is a review in which bias has been reduced by the systematic identification, appraisal, synthesis and statistical.
Stat 301- Day 32 More on two-sample t- procedures.
NURS 505B Library Session Rachael Clemens Spring 2007.
Meta-analysis & psychotherapy outcome research
Chapter 5 Section 2: Binomial Probabilities. trial – each time the basic experiment is performed.
CHAPTER 8 Estimating with Confidence
By Dr. Ahmed Mostafa Assist. Prof. of anesthesia & I.C.U. Evidence-based medicine.
Chapter 10: Estimating with Confidence
Introduction to evidence based medicine
Critical appraisal Systematic Review กิตติพันธุ์ ฤกษ์เกษม ภาควิชาศัลยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่
Chapter 5 Sampling Distributions
3-6 6 th grade math Sampling Methods. Objective To understand how the method of sampling determines how representative the sample is of the population.
10.3 Estimating a Population Proportion
ESTIMATING with confidence. Confidence INterval A confidence interval gives an estimated range of values which is likely to include an unknown population.
Gyte G a, Grant-Pearce C b, Henderson S a, Horey D a, Oliver S c and Sakala C a a Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, University of Liverpool (UK);
CHAPTER 8 Estimating with Confidence
Chapter 8 Introduction to Inference Target Goal: I can calculate the confidence interval for a population Estimating with Confidence 8.1a h.w: pg 481:
+ The Practice of Statistics, 4 th edition – For AP* STARNES, YATES, MOORE Chapter 8: Estimating with Confidence Section 8.1 Confidence Intervals: The.
A Science Fair Project Guide
1 ICEBOH Split-mouth studies and systematic reviews Ian Needleman 1 & Helen Worthington 2 1 Unit of Periodontology UCL Eastman Dental Institute International.
Trial sequential boundary (TSB) Cumulated Z-curve Traditional P=0.05 criteria Z-value ( II) Antibiotics for Necrotizing EnteroColitis in newborns (5 trials.
+ Warm-Up4/8/13. + Warm-Up Solutions + Quiz You have 15 minutes to finish your quiz. When you finish, turn it in, pick up a guided notes sheet, and wait.
Evidence Based Medicine Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Ross Lawrenson.
Section 2 Part 2.   Population - entire group of people or items for which we are collecting data  Sample – selections of the population that is used.
The Process of Conducting Research
Software Engineering Experimentation Rules for Reviewing Papers Jeff Offutt See my editorials 17(3) and 17(4) in STVR
AP Stat Review Descriptive Statistics Grab Bag Probability
Clinical Writing for Interventional Cardiologists.
The Campbell Collaborationwww.campbellcollaboration.org C2 Training: May 9 – 10, 2011 Introduction to meta-analysis.
13. External Validity What is meant by the external validity of a research design? How is research limited in regard to generalization to other groups.
+ The Practice of Statistics, 4 th edition – For AP* STARNES, YATES, MOORE Unit 5: Estimating with Confidence Section 10.1 Confidence Intervals: The Basics.
Quick Start Expectations 1.Fill in planner and HWRS HW: SP p #7, 20, 30 2.Get a signature on HWRS 3.On desk: journal, LS packet, toolkit, calculator.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD CA STATE STANDARD 8.
Biostatistics in Practice Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 3: Testing Hypotheses.
Lecture PowerPoint Slides Basic Practice of Statistics 7 th Edition.
The Binomial Distribution
EVALUATING u After retrieving the literature, you have to evaluate or critically appraise the evidence for its validity and applicability to your patient.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence November-December 2012.
Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 18 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Chapter 1: The Nature of Science Section 1: What is Science?
Chapter 7 Data for Decisions. Population vs Sample A Population in a statistical study is the entire group of individuals about which we want information.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when and how to do them Andrew Smith Royal Lancaster Infirmary 18 May 2015.
Evaluation of statistical methods for meta-analysis Julian Higgins School of Social and Community Medicine University of Bristol, UK 1 Cochrane Methods.
Designing Studies In order to produce data that will truly answer the questions about a large group, the way a study is designed is important. 1)Decide.
1 Chapter 11 Understanding Randomness. 2 Why Random? What is it about chance outcomes being random that makes random selection seem fair? Two things:
1 Lecture 10: Meta-analysis of intervention studies Introduction to meta-analysis Selection of studies Abstraction of information Quality scores Methods.
The Scientific Method. The scientific method is the only scientific way accepted to back up a theory or idea. This is the method on which all research.
Lesson Runs Test for Randomness. Objectives Perform a runs test for randomness Runs tests are used to test whether it is reasonable to conclude.
Chapter 8: Estimating with Confidence
+ The Practice of Statistics, 4 th edition – For AP* STARNES, YATES, MOORE Chapter 8: Estimating with Confidence Section 8.1 Confidence Intervals: The.
Producing Data 1.
A Science Fair Project Guide
How many study subjects are required ? (Estimation of Sample size) By Dr.Shaik Shaffi Ahamed Associate Professor Dept. of Family & Community Medicine.
A Science Fair Project Guide
Association between risk-of-bias assessments and results of randomized trials in Cochrane reviews: the ROBES study Jelena Savović1, Becky Turner2, David.
الأستاذ المساعد بقسم المناهج وطرق التدريس
A Science Fair Project Guide
BOOTSTRAPPING: LEARNING FROM THE SAMPLE
A Science Fair Project Guide
A Science Fair Project Guide
Scientific Method Steps
A Science Fair Project Guide
A Science Fair Project Guide
Presentation transcript:

Effects of lack of independence in meta-epidemiology Peter Herbison Preventive and Social Medicine University of Otago

The problem Median number of trials in a meta-analysis in the Cochrane Library is 2-3. In spite of this many of these reviews make quite strong recommendations. Are they justified in making these recommendations?

What we wanted to do Used an existing data set that has 65 meta-analyses from 18 systematic reviews that was collected for another purpose Using cumulative meta-analysis we looked at what the answer was after the first three and the first five studies and compared this with the answer from all the studies (“final” answer)

Referees Paper came back from the journal saying that it was a good idea but they were not certain if using multiple outcomes from the same systematic review was reasonable Most similar meta-epidemiology studies only select one outcome from each systematic review This would leave us with only 18 results

Lack of independence I find it hard to imagine that this lack of independence will influence how quickly results settle down Especially since there is often a different mix of studies for the different outcomes One referee suggested a sensitivity analysis using one outcome from each review

Bootstrapping Why just randomly choose one outcome from each review when you can do this repeatedly? –Using strata and size in the bootstrap command This should give some idea whether the lack of independence is important or not

Results Does the confidence interval include the “final” value? EstimateBinomial 95% CI Bootstrap 95% CI After 3 studies 68.8%57.1 – – 80.7 After 5 studies 75.0%64.1 – – 87.9

Results Does the confidence interval overlap with that of the “final” value? EstimateBinomial 95% CI Bootstrap 95% CI After 3 studies 75.0%64.1 – – 83.7 After 5 studies 81.2%71.5 – – 91.7

More traditional meta-epidemiology Use the same data set to see if lack of allocation concealment is associated with bias. Assuming independence –ROR 0.91 (95%CI 0.84 – 0.98) Bootstrap –ROR 0.91 (95%CI 0.83 – 0.99)

Conclusion In this data set at least, lack of independence does not seem to make much difference.