Search Archives

Good morning, We're undertaking a meta-analysis in which we have an association between a dichotomous outcome (mortality) and a categorical variable with multiple choices (usually between 3 and 4). However, the reference isnt always the same, so we...

Hello, We are conducting a meta-analysis to assess the potential relationship between a dichotomous outcome (access to appropriate care) and a variety of exposures based on the PROGRESS-PLUS list. For instance, this list include the variable ?race?, which...

Dear Guido, Yes I already tried this method (I replicated http://www.metafor-project.org/doku.php/analyses:stijnen2010), results were slightly different from that obtained using the previous classic code but it's hard to tell which is more...

Hello Christian, Thanks for your reply and suggestions. I just went over the two papers and the detailed instructions of the metaStan package and I have two quick questions: Arguments required to conduct each stage of the meta-analysis are...

Dear all, I'm currently conducting a meta-analysis of proportions of rare events (including studies with zero event). Based on previous literature (see postscript below), it is generally suggested to avoid the following: [1] continuity corrections; [2] non-exact...

Hello again, Thanks for the follow up. I have compared the two methods (inverse variance with double arcsine vs mixed-effects logistic) and I still have one question. 1) Summary proportions obtained with either model are really low and relatively...

Oh, thanks for these precisions, it works well! I had manage to obtain the same results by internally calling GLMM with metaprop for x event per 1000 observations: res <- metaprop(cases, total, Study, data=dat, sm ="PLO", method="GLMM", method...

I do not mean to hijack this discussion, I'm also struggling with a similar issue and thought it best to use this topic related to heterogeneity and degrees of freedom. Following this (http://www.metafor-project.org/doku.php...