Your SlideShare is downloading.
×

×

Saving this for later?
Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Like this presentation? Why not share!

- Critical appraisal of meta-analysis by Samir Haffar 3914 views
- Meta Analysis – An Overview by Tulasi Raman 2593 views
- 10. Introduction to meta-analysis by Miranda Cumpston 7917 views
- Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis C... by King Abdullah Med... 3728 views
- Metanalysis Lecture by drmomusa 4000 views
- Forest Plots by Ajibola Awotiwon 85 views
- Meta analysis - qualitative researc... by Dinesh Selvam 5671 views
- Introduction to meta analysis by Santam Chakraborty 892 views
- 12. Introduction to RevMan by Miranda Cumpston 6926 views
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews by coolboy101pk 2045 views
- Download by Fordlovers 878 views
- Metaanalysis copy by Amandeep Kaur 244 views

17,425

Published on

No Downloads

Total Views

17,425

On Slideshare

0

From Embeds

0

Number of Embeds

0

Shares

0

Downloads

0

Comments

6

Likes

16

No embeds

No notes for slide

- 1. How to read a forest plot?Samir Haffar M.D.Assistant Professor of Gastroenterology
- 2. Clinical history• 60-year-old man with acute biliary pancreatitis• Ranson’s score: 4 – No fever – Normal WBCs• CECT* on day 7: CT grading system of Balthazar 3Necrosis score 2CT severity index 5• You wonder if prophylactic antibiotics prevents infectionof non-infected pancreatic necrosis & decreases mortality*CECT: Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography
- 3. Ranson’s score for gallstone pancreatitisAge > 70 yrBlood glucose >220 mg/dlWBC >18,000/mm3LDH > 400 IU/LASAT > 250 IU/LAt presentation1 point for each positive factorSevere acute pancreatitis: ≥ 3Ranson JHC. Am J Gastroenterol 1982;77:633.During initial 48 hrHt >10% decreaseSerum calcium < 8 mg/dlBase deficit > 5 mEq/LBUN > 2 mg/dl increaseFluid sequestration > 4 L
- 4. CT grading system of BalthazarGrade Description PointsA Normal pancreas 0Balthazar EJ et al. Radiology 1990 ; 174 : 331 – 6.B Pancreatic enlargement 1C Inflammation of pancreas or peripancreatic fat 2D Single peripancreatic fluid collection 3E ≥ 2 fluid collections or retroperitoneal air 4
- 5. Necrosis scoreNecrosis PointsNo pancreatic necrosis 0 pointsOne third of pancreas 2 pointsOne half of pancreas 4 points> one half of pancreas 6 points
- 6. CT severity indexThe index ranges from 0 to 10Severe acute pancreatitis ≥ 3CT grading of Balthazar(0 – 4 points)Necrosis score(0 – 6 points)+Morgan DE. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008 ; 6 : 1077 – 1085.
- 7. CT Severity Index (CTSI)Localized fluid collection adjacent to tail: CT grading (3 points)Lack of enhancement of pancreatic tail: Necrosis <30 % (2 points)Absence of retroperitoneal air
- 8. Bai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.Antibiotic prophylactic in pancreatic necrosisFlow diagram
- 9. Characteristics of RCTs included in MABai Yu & al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.467 patients included in 7 trials
- 10. Data analysis2 stage statistical process of MAStatistical power of MA is often very high• Treatment effect for each studyp value (p)Relative Risk (RR) or Odds Ratio (OR)Confidence Intervals (CIs)Number Needed to Treat (NNT)• Overall treatment effectCalculated as weighted average of individual statistics
- 11. • p > 0.05 Statistically insignificant• p < 0.05 Statistically significantProbability value (p value)StatisticallysignificantClinicallysignificantDoesntmean
- 12. Risk & OddsRiskaa + bRisk =RR: risk patients/risk controlsOddsabOdds =OR: odds patients/odds controls
- 13. Interpretation of RR & OROR or RR should be accompanied by CIRR or OR > 1Increased likelihood of outcome in treatment groupRR or OR < 1Decreased likelihood of outcome in treatment groupRR or OR = 1No difference of outcome between tt & control group
- 14. Confidence IntervalsValue 95 % CI are commonly used90 or 99% CI are sometimes usedWidth of CI Indicates precision of the estimateWider the interval, less the precisionCI includes 1 No statistically significant differenceCI doesn’t include 1 Statistically significant difference
- 15. Statistical significance & CI(a) Statistically significant , low precision(b) Statistically significant, high precision(c) Not statistically significant, low precision(d) Not statistically significant, high precisionGlasziou P et al. Evidence based practice workbook. Blackwell, 2nd edition, 2007.
- 16. Number Needed to Treat (NNT)• Relative risk (RR)Risk in treatment group / risk in control group• Absolute risk reduction (ARR)Risk in control group – risk in treatment group• NNT (expressed in clinically relevant way)1 /ARR
- 17. Statistical methods/overall treatment effectLarger trials have more influence than smaller onesFixed effects model 1Random effects model 2Bayesian models3 ControversialFixed & random effects1 Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1985 ; 17 : 335 – 71.2 Stat Med 1992 ; 11 : 141 – 58.3 BMJ 1996 ; 313 : 603 – 7.No singlecorrect method
- 18. Reporting the resultsThe typical graph for displaying resultsof a meta-analysis is called a ‘‘forest plot’’
- 19. Antibiotic prophylaxis & prevention of infectionBai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.Forest plot
- 20. Bai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.Antibiotic prophylaxis & & prevention of infectionHorizontal lineScale measuring the treatment effect
- 21. Bai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.Antibiotic prophylaxis & infected necrosisVertical line or line of no effectTreatment & control groups have the same effect
- 22. Antibiotic prophylaxis & infected necrosisBai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.Point estimate & CIs for each study
- 23. Point estimate (RR or OR) & CIGallin JI, Ognibene FP. Principles & practice of clinical research.A Press, 2nd ed, 2005.
- 24. Antibiotic prophylaxis & infected necrosisBai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.Diamond
- 25. The diamondPerera R, Heneghan C, Badenoch D. Statistics Toolkit.Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 1st edition, 2008.Shows combined point estimate (OR or RR)& CI for the meta-analysis
- 26. Diamond in meta-analysisDiamond on Left of the line of no effectLess episodes of outcome of interest in treatment groupDiamond on Right of the line of no effectMoRe episodes of outcome in treatment groupDiamond touches the line of no effectNo statistically significant difference between groupsDiamond does not touch the line of no effectDifference between two groups statistically significant
- 27. Bai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.Antibiotic prophylaxis & infected necrosisThe diamondShows the overall result of MA
- 28. Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on mortalityBai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.The diamond
- 29. Interpretation of forest plotNames on left First authors of primary studiesBlack squares RR or OR of individual studiesBlack square size Weight of each trial in MAHorizontal lines 95% confidence intervalsVertical line Line of no effect (OR or RR = 1)Diamond Overall treatment effectDiamond Center Combined treatment effectTips of diamond 95% CI
- 30. Relative Risk or Odds Ratio?HP eradication in nonulcer dyspepsiaIt is useful to analyze data in both OR & RRMoayyedi P. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; : 2297-2301.Using OR Using RRSignificant heterogeneity Reduced heterogeneity
- 31. Random or fixed effect modelS?Prokinetics in nonulcer dyspepsiaMoayyedi P. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; : 2297-2301.Small trials given more weight than large trials in random effectsIncrease estimated overall effect size & widen the 95% CIRandom effects modelFixed effects model
- 32. Do the pieces fit together?HeterogeneitySimon SD. Statistical evidence in medical trials: What do the data really tell us?Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1st edition, 2006
- 33. Measurement of heterogeneity in MA?• QualitativeForest plot Visual evidence of heterogeneityFunnel plot Visual evidence of heterogeneity• QuantitativeX-squaredI-squared Based on Cochran’s QSimon SD. Statistical evidence in medical trials: What do the data really tell us?Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1st edition, 2006
- 34. Heterogeneity & forest plotHypothetical MASome trials with lower C.I. above upper C.I. of other trialsSome lines do not overlapMcGovern D, Summerskill W, Valori R, Levi M. Key topics in EBM.BIOS Scientific Publishers, 1st Edition, Oxford, 2001.
- 35. Funnel plotsBias detected by simple graphical test• Plot for each trial RR or OR on x axisSample size on y axis• Absence of biasPlot should resemble inverted funnel or Christmas tree• Presence of biasPlot shows asymmetrical & skewed shape
- 36. Ideal funnel plotThe smaller the trial, the larger the distribution of resultsCleophas TJ et all. Statistics applied to clinical trials.Springer, The Netherlands , 3rd edition, 2006.
- 37. Cut Christmas treeCleophas TJ et all. Statistics applied to clinical trials.Springer, The Netherlands , 3rd edition, 2006.Negative trials not published (missing)Suspicion of considerable publication bias in this MA
- 38. Funnel plotPublication bias of antibiotics for infected necrosisBai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.
- 39. Funnel plotPublication bias of trials of antibiotics for mortalityBai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.
- 40. Quantitative measure of heterogeneityMany prefer not to use quantitative measure• X-squared:Degree of freedom (df) Number of trials in MA – 1X2 ≈ df No heterogeneityX2 much greater than df Serious heterogeneity• I-squared (0 – 100%)< 25% No heterogeneity50% – 75% Serious heterogeneitySimon SD. Statistical evidence in medical trials: What do the data really tell us?Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1st edition, 2006
- 41. Bai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.Antibiotic prophylaxis & pancreatic necrosisHeterogeneityX2 = 7.82 (df 6 – No heterogeneity)I2 = 23.2% (No or little heterogeneity)
- 42. Antibiotic prophylactic effect on mortalityHeterogeneityBai Y et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 ; 103 : 104 – 110.X2 = 4.66 (df 6 – No heterogeneity)I2 = 0 % (No or little heterogeneity)
- 43. Thank You

In advance, Thank you very much.

thank you very much

In advance, Thank you very much.