-----Original Message-----
From: R-sig-meta-analysis [mailto:r-sig-meta-analysis-bounces at r-project.org]
On Behalf Of Ju Lee
Sent: Monday, 13 April, 2020 22:47
To: r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org
Subject: [R-meta] Dear Wolfgang
Dear Wolfgang,
I hope you are doing well.
My research group is currently working on a project where they are trying to
compare effect sizes generated from their current mixed-effect meta-analysis
with effect sizes (based on similar response variables) calculated in other
meta-analysis publications.
We are currently using log response ratio and are trying to make some
statement or analysis to compare our grand mean effect sizes with other
studies. In more details, we are examining how herbivorous animal control
plant growth in degraded environment. Now, there is already a meta-analysis
out there that has examined this (in comparable manner) in natural
environment as opposed to our study.
My colleagues want to know if there is a way to make some type of comparison
(ex. whether responses are stronger in degraded vs. natural environemnts)
between two effect sizes from these different studies using statistical
approaches.
So far what they have from other meta-analysis publication is grand mean
hedges'd and var which they transformed to lnRR and var in hopes to compare
with our lnRR effect sizes.
My view is that this is not possible unless we can have their actual raw
dataset and run a whole new model combining with our original raw dataset.
But I wanted to reach out to you and the community if there is an
alternative approaches to compare mean effect sizes among different meta-
analysis which are assumed to have used similar approaches in study
selection and models (another issue being different random effect structures
used in different meta-analysis which may not be very apparent from method
description).
Thank you for reading and I hope to hear from you!
Best,
JU