Hi all, I noticed that in Comprehensive Meta Analysis (CMA), there are two options you can select to calculate subgroup average effect sizes. The first approach is assume a common among-study variance component across subgroups and the second one is not assume a common among-study variance component. When you select different approaches, the subgroup average effect sizes, the overall average effect size and their confidence intervals will change accordingly. This has something to do with the tau-squared calculated by different approaches. This video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7X5ZbfJgDI&t=1714s.>here explains the reason behind it in detail if you fast forward to 22:40. I have attached my dataset here as an example. I want to do a meta-analysis of proportions so the data doesn't have a control group. It includes a moderator called studytype that divides the studies into two subgroups: birth cohort and others. Using R, the subgroup average effect sizes I calculated are the same as obtained in CMA. *My question is that *how to use R to get the same overall average effect size as calculated in CMA using different approaches? My code: dat=read.csv("data.csv",header=T,sep=",") es=escalc(xi=cases,ni=total,measure="PLO",data=dat) overall.es=rma(yi,vi,data=es,method="DL",weighted=TRUE) pred=predict(overall.es,transf=transf.ilogit,digits=5) print(pred,digits=5) The overall average effect size: pred ci.lb ci.ub cr.lb cr.ub 0.00042 0.00032 0.00057 0.00013 0.00135 The overall average effect size obtained above is derived when you don't do subgrouping. In CMA, if you do subgrouping, the overall effect size will change according to the approach you select. If you assume a common among-study variance, the overall average will become 0.000430 with a 95% CI [0.000307, 0.000602]; if you do not assume that, the overall average will become 0.000453 with a 95% CI [0.000335, 0.000611], which are the values I try to obtain in R* (I don't know how to do this, which is why I'm asking this question).* If assuming a common among-study variance component across subgroups: studytype=rma(yi,vi,data=ies.logit,mods=~studytype,method="DL") pred.studytype=predict(studytype,transf=transf.ilogit,digits=5) print(pred.studytype[c(1,17)]) then the subgroup average effect sizes are: pred ci.lb ci.ub cr.lb cr.ub 1 0.00034 0.00020 0.00061 0.00008 0.00142 #Birth cohort 17 0.00049 0.00032 0.00074 0.00012 0.00191 #Others If not assuming a common among-study variance component across subgroups: birthcohort=rma(yi,vi,data=ies.logit,subset=studytype=="Birth cohort",method="DL") others=rma(yi,vi,data=ies.logit,subset=studytype=="Others",method="DL") pred.birthcohort=predict(birthcohort,transf=transf.ilogit,digits=5) pred.others=predict(others,transf=transf.ilogit,digits=5) print(pred.birthcohort,digits=5) print(pred.others,digits=5) then the subgroup average effect sizes are: pred ci.lb ci.ub cr.lb cr.ub 0.00035 0.00016 0.00078 0.00005 0.00274 pred ci.lb ci.ub cr.lb cr.ub 0.00047 0.00034 0.00065 0.00017 0.00132 The screen shots I attached here shows the same results I obtained above. Please let me know if my question makes sense. It's kind of difficult to explain this very clearly in an email. Thank you for your time! Cheers, Naike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/9acaa6c0/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: data.csv Type: text/csv Size: 577 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/9acaa6c0/attachment-0001.csv> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: two options you can select.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28954 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/9acaa6c0/attachment-0004.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: no subgrouping.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38913 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/9acaa6c0/attachment-0005.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: assume same variance.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60860 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/9acaa6c0/attachment-0006.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: do not assume same variance.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 57471 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/9acaa6c0/attachment-0007.jpg>
[R-meta] Two ways to calculate subgroup and overall average effect sizes
2 messages · Naike Wang
Sorry. I forgot to mention that I used the metafor package. Naike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Naike Wang <wangnaike1989 at gmail.com> Date: 2017-08-16 12:28 GMT-04:00 Subject: Two ways to calculate subgroup and overall average effect sizes To: r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org Hi all, I noticed that in Comprehensive Meta Analysis (CMA), there are two options you can select to calculate subgroup average effect sizes. The first approach is assume a common among-study variance component across subgroups and the second one is not assume a common among-study variance component. When you select different approaches, the subgroup average effect sizes, the overall average effect size and their confidence intervals will change accordingly. This has something to do with the tau-squared calculated by different approaches. This video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7X5ZbfJgDI&t=1714s.>here explains the reason behind it in detail if you fast forward to 22:40. I have attached my dataset here as an example. I want to do a meta-analysis of proportions so the data doesn't have a control group. It includes a moderator called studytype that divides the studies into two subgroups: birth cohort and others. Using R, the subgroup average effect sizes I calculated are the same as obtained in CMA. *My question is that *how to use R to get the same overall average effect size as calculated in CMA using different approaches? My code: dat=read.csv("data.csv",header=T,sep=",") es=escalc(xi=cases,ni=total,measure="PLO",data=dat) overall.es=rma(yi,vi,data=es,method="DL",weighted=TRUE) pred=predict(overall.es,transf=transf.ilogit,digits=5) print(pred,digits=5) The overall average effect size: pred ci.lb ci.ub cr.lb cr.ub 0.00042 0.00032 0.00057 0.00013 0.00135 The overall average effect size obtained above is derived when you don't do subgrouping. In CMA, if you do subgrouping, the overall effect size will change according to the approach you select. If you assume a common among-study variance, the overall average will become 0.000430 with a 95% CI [0.000307, 0.000602]; if you do not assume that, the overall average will become 0.000453 with a 95% CI [0.000335, 0.000611], which are the values I try to obtain in R* (I don't know how to do this, which is why I'm asking this question).* #If assuming a common among-study variance component across subgroups: studytype=rma(yi,vi,data=ies.logit,mods=~studytype,method="DL") pred.studytype=predict(studytype,transf=transf.ilogit,digits=5) print(pred.studytype[c(1,17)]) #then the subgroup average effect sizes are: pred ci.lb ci.ub cr.lb cr.ub 1 0.00034 0.00020 0.00061 0.00008 0.00142 #Birth cohort 17 0.00049 0.00032 0.00074 0.00012 0.00191 #Others #If not assuming a common among-study variance component across subgroups: birthcohort=rma(yi,vi,data=ies.logit,subset=studytype=="Birth cohort",method="DL") others=rma(yi,vi,data=ies.logit,subset=studytype=="Others",method="DL") pred.birthcohort=predict(birthcohort,transf=transf.ilogit,digits=5) pred.others=predict(others,transf=transf.ilogit,digits=5) print(pred.birthcohort,digits=5) print(pred.others,digits=5) #then the subgroup average effect sizes are: pred ci.lb ci.ub cr.lb cr.ub 0.00035 0.00016 0.00078 0.00005 0.00274 pred ci.lb ci.ub cr.lb cr.ub 0.00047 0.00034 0.00065 0.00017 0.00132 The screen shots I attached here shows the same results I obtained above. Please let me know if my question makes sense. It's kind of difficult to explain this very clearly in an email. Thank you for your time! Cheers, Naike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/e461e4ac/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: two options you can select.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28954 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/e461e4ac/attachment-0004.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: no subgrouping.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38913 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/e461e4ac/attachment-0005.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: assume same variance.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60860 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/e461e4ac/attachment-0006.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: do not assume same variance.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 57471 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/e461e4ac/attachment-0007.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: data.csv Type: text/csv Size: 577 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170816/e461e4ac/attachment-0001.csv>