This document provides an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It defines key terms like systematic review and meta-analysis. It describes the steps involved in conducting a systematic review, including developing a protocol and research question, searching for studies, assessing study quality, extracting and synthesizing data, and interpreting findings. It notes that a meta-analysis allows for quantitative synthesis by statistically combining study results, while a systematic review without meta-analysis provides a qualitative narrative synthesis. The document discusses factors like heterogeneity that determine whether a quantitative or qualitative synthesis is appropriate.
Systematic review and meta analysis is considered as the highest body of evidence in research evidence hierarchy. Often misunderstood or skipped over, this powerful tool can broaden our understanding on a specific topic and form basis of practicing evidence based medicine for us.
I presented systematic review and meta analysis as part of my PG seminar and got a good feedback. Now I wanted to share the presentation for a broader audience.
Any kind of constructive feedback is welcome.
Dr. Anik Chakraborty
JR3, Dept. Of Community Medicine
Pt. B. D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak
Systematic review and meta analysis is considered as the highest body of evidence in research evidence hierarchy. Often misunderstood or skipped over, this powerful tool can broaden our understanding on a specific topic and form basis of practicing evidence based medicine for us.
I presented systematic review and meta analysis as part of my PG seminar and got a good feedback. Now I wanted to share the presentation for a broader audience.
Any kind of constructive feedback is welcome.
Dr. Anik Chakraborty
JR3, Dept. Of Community Medicine
Pt. B. D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak
Introduction
Study design in qualitative research
Method of data collection
Handling qualitative data
Analyzing qualitative data
Presenting the results of qualitative research
Systematic literature review | Meta analysis | Retrospective versusPubrica
Systematic review for prospective studies is a meticulous and essential process ensuring research findings’ reliability and validity. The key to success lies in adhering to a well-structured methodology that includes defining the research question, developing a comprehensive search strategy, screening studies based on pre-defined criteria, and critically appraising the selected articles.
Read more @ https://pubrica.com/academy/manuscript-editing/conduct-a-systematic-review-for-prospective-studies/
A document that provides an unbiased and comprehensive synthesis
of relevant studies and research.
Characteristics of a Systematic Review
Purposes of a systematic review
As Europe's leading economic powerhouse and the fourth-largest hashtag#economy globally, Germany stands at the forefront of innovation and industrial might. Renowned for its precision engineering and high-tech sectors, Germany's economic structure is heavily supported by a robust service industry, accounting for approximately 68% of its GDP. This economic clout and strategic geopolitical stance position Germany as a focal point in the global cyber threat landscape.
In the face of escalating global tensions, particularly those emanating from geopolitical disputes with nations like hashtag#Russia and hashtag#China, hashtag#Germany has witnessed a significant uptick in targeted cyber operations. Our analysis indicates a marked increase in hashtag#cyberattack sophistication aimed at critical infrastructure and key industrial sectors. These attacks range from ransomware campaigns to hashtag#AdvancedPersistentThreats (hashtag#APTs), threatening national security and business integrity.
🔑 Key findings include:
🔍 Increased frequency and complexity of cyber threats.
🔍 Escalation of state-sponsored and criminally motivated cyber operations.
🔍 Active dark web exchanges of malicious tools and tactics.
Our comprehensive report delves into these challenges, using a blend of open-source and proprietary data collection techniques. By monitoring activity on critical networks and analyzing attack patterns, our team provides a detailed overview of the threats facing German entities.
This report aims to equip stakeholders across public and private sectors with the knowledge to enhance their defensive strategies, reduce exposure to cyber risks, and reinforce Germany's resilience against cyber threats.
Introduction
Study design in qualitative research
Method of data collection
Handling qualitative data
Analyzing qualitative data
Presenting the results of qualitative research
Systematic literature review | Meta analysis | Retrospective versusPubrica
Systematic review for prospective studies is a meticulous and essential process ensuring research findings’ reliability and validity. The key to success lies in adhering to a well-structured methodology that includes defining the research question, developing a comprehensive search strategy, screening studies based on pre-defined criteria, and critically appraising the selected articles.
Read more @ https://pubrica.com/academy/manuscript-editing/conduct-a-systematic-review-for-prospective-studies/
A document that provides an unbiased and comprehensive synthesis
of relevant studies and research.
Characteristics of a Systematic Review
Purposes of a systematic review
As Europe's leading economic powerhouse and the fourth-largest hashtag#economy globally, Germany stands at the forefront of innovation and industrial might. Renowned for its precision engineering and high-tech sectors, Germany's economic structure is heavily supported by a robust service industry, accounting for approximately 68% of its GDP. This economic clout and strategic geopolitical stance position Germany as a focal point in the global cyber threat landscape.
In the face of escalating global tensions, particularly those emanating from geopolitical disputes with nations like hashtag#Russia and hashtag#China, hashtag#Germany has witnessed a significant uptick in targeted cyber operations. Our analysis indicates a marked increase in hashtag#cyberattack sophistication aimed at critical infrastructure and key industrial sectors. These attacks range from ransomware campaigns to hashtag#AdvancedPersistentThreats (hashtag#APTs), threatening national security and business integrity.
🔑 Key findings include:
🔍 Increased frequency and complexity of cyber threats.
🔍 Escalation of state-sponsored and criminally motivated cyber operations.
🔍 Active dark web exchanges of malicious tools and tactics.
Our comprehensive report delves into these challenges, using a blend of open-source and proprietary data collection techniques. By monitoring activity on critical networks and analyzing attack patterns, our team provides a detailed overview of the threats facing German entities.
This report aims to equip stakeholders across public and private sectors with the knowledge to enhance their defensive strategies, reduce exposure to cyber risks, and reinforce Germany's resilience against cyber threats.
Show drafts
volume_up
Empowering the Data Analytics Ecosystem: A Laser Focus on Value
The data analytics ecosystem thrives when every component functions at its peak, unlocking the true potential of data. Here's a laser focus on key areas for an empowered ecosystem:
1. Democratize Access, Not Data:
Granular Access Controls: Provide users with self-service tools tailored to their specific needs, preventing data overload and misuse.
Data Catalogs: Implement robust data catalogs for easy discovery and understanding of available data sources.
2. Foster Collaboration with Clear Roles:
Data Mesh Architecture: Break down data silos by creating a distributed data ownership model with clear ownership and responsibilities.
Collaborative Workspaces: Utilize interactive platforms where data scientists, analysts, and domain experts can work seamlessly together.
3. Leverage Advanced Analytics Strategically:
AI-powered Automation: Automate repetitive tasks like data cleaning and feature engineering, freeing up data talent for higher-level analysis.
Right-Tool Selection: Strategically choose the most effective advanced analytics techniques (e.g., AI, ML) based on specific business problems.
4. Prioritize Data Quality with Automation:
Automated Data Validation: Implement automated data quality checks to identify and rectify errors at the source, minimizing downstream issues.
Data Lineage Tracking: Track the flow of data throughout the ecosystem, ensuring transparency and facilitating root cause analysis for errors.
5. Cultivate a Data-Driven Mindset:
Metrics-Driven Performance Management: Align KPIs and performance metrics with data-driven insights to ensure actionable decision making.
Data Storytelling Workshops: Equip stakeholders with the skills to translate complex data findings into compelling narratives that drive action.
Benefits of a Precise Ecosystem:
Sharpened Focus: Precise access and clear roles ensure everyone works with the most relevant data, maximizing efficiency.
Actionable Insights: Strategic analytics and automated quality checks lead to more reliable and actionable data insights.
Continuous Improvement: Data-driven performance management fosters a culture of learning and continuous improvement.
Sustainable Growth: Empowered by data, organizations can make informed decisions to drive sustainable growth and innovation.
By focusing on these precise actions, organizations can create an empowered data analytics ecosystem that delivers real value by driving data-driven decisions and maximizing the return on their data investment.
Adjusting primitives for graph : SHORT REPORT / NOTESSubhajit Sahu
Graph algorithms, like PageRank Compressed Sparse Row (CSR) is an adjacency-list based graph representation that is
Multiply with different modes (map)
1. Performance of sequential execution based vs OpenMP based vector multiply.
2. Comparing various launch configs for CUDA based vector multiply.
Sum with different storage types (reduce)
1. Performance of vector element sum using float vs bfloat16 as the storage type.
Sum with different modes (reduce)
1. Performance of sequential execution based vs OpenMP based vector element sum.
2. Performance of memcpy vs in-place based CUDA based vector element sum.
3. Comparing various launch configs for CUDA based vector element sum (memcpy).
4. Comparing various launch configs for CUDA based vector element sum (in-place).
Sum with in-place strategies of CUDA mode (reduce)
1. Comparing various launch configs for CUDA based vector element sum (in-place).
Techniques to optimize the pagerank algorithm usually fall in two categories. One is to try reducing the work per iteration, and the other is to try reducing the number of iterations. These goals are often at odds with one another. Skipping computation on vertices which have already converged has the potential to save iteration time. Skipping in-identical vertices, with the same in-links, helps reduce duplicate computations and thus could help reduce iteration time. Road networks often have chains which can be short-circuited before pagerank computation to improve performance. Final ranks of chain nodes can be easily calculated. This could reduce both the iteration time, and the number of iterations. If a graph has no dangling nodes, pagerank of each strongly connected component can be computed in topological order. This could help reduce the iteration time, no. of iterations, and also enable multi-iteration concurrency in pagerank computation. The combination of all of the above methods is the STICD algorithm. [sticd] For dynamic graphs, unchanged components whose ranks are unaffected can be skipped altogether.
Explore our comprehensive data analysis project presentation on predicting product ad campaign performance. Learn how data-driven insights can optimize your marketing strategies and enhance campaign effectiveness. Perfect for professionals and students looking to understand the power of data analysis in advertising. for more details visit: https://bostoninstituteofanalytics.org/data-science-and-artificial-intelligence/
Opendatabay - Open Data Marketplace.pptxOpendatabay
Opendatabay.com unlocks the power of data for everyone. Open Data Marketplace fosters a collaborative hub for data enthusiasts to explore, share, and contribute to a vast collection of datasets.
First ever open hub for data enthusiasts to collaborate and innovate. A platform to explore, share, and contribute to a vast collection of datasets. Through robust quality control and innovative technologies like blockchain verification, opendatabay ensures the authenticity and reliability of datasets, empowering users to make data-driven decisions with confidence. Leverage cutting-edge AI technologies to enhance the data exploration, analysis, and discovery experience.
From intelligent search and recommendations to automated data productisation and quotation, Opendatabay AI-driven features streamline the data workflow. Finding the data you need shouldn't be a complex. Opendatabay simplifies the data acquisition process with an intuitive interface and robust search tools. Effortlessly explore, discover, and access the data you need, allowing you to focus on extracting valuable insights. Opendatabay breaks new ground with a dedicated, AI-generated, synthetic datasets.
Leverage these privacy-preserving datasets for training and testing AI models without compromising sensitive information. Opendatabay prioritizes transparency by providing detailed metadata, provenance information, and usage guidelines for each dataset, ensuring users have a comprehensive understanding of the data they're working with. By leveraging a powerful combination of distributed ledger technology and rigorous third-party audits Opendatabay ensures the authenticity and reliability of every dataset. Security is at the core of Opendatabay. Marketplace implements stringent security measures, including encryption, access controls, and regular vulnerability assessments, to safeguard your data and protect your privacy.
2. Introduction
• Definitions
– Systematic review: is a systematic search for all
available studies to answer a particular question
– A systematic review seeks to identify, collate, and
systematically summarize all empirical evidence on a
specific research topic, using explicit, systematic,
transparent, and replicable methods that are
designed to minimize bias.
• Provides a comprehensive summary of best evidence
on a given research topic
3. Why do we need to do systematic
review
• There are limitless published studies
– On which study do you want to rely?
• Unmanageable information from individual study:
– Biased
– Methodologically flawed
– Time and context dependent
– Misinterpreted
– Vary in conclusion
• Need for comprehensive synthesis of existing
knowledge
4. • Such synthesis leads to
– Evidence based guidelines and policies
– Separate sound from unsound evidence
– Efficient use of resource
– Reflection on need of further research
5. • We benefited from SR
– Time
– Cost
– Right decision on what works
• recognizes that consistent results across multiple
primary studies provide more convincing evidence than
results from any single primary study.
– Future paths of investigation
– Science to grow
6. • Goals of systematic review:
– Appraise quality of existing studies
– Provide high quality summary of the underlying
evidence
7. • Users
– Researchers
• Current state of the art
• Gap in evidence
• Formulate further research
– Practitioners
• Inform best evidence based practice
• Develop guidelines
– Policy makers
• Formulate best evidence based policy
– Patients
• Make best informed choice from alternatives
8. • Before formulating the question, establish
need for a systematic review on the topic
9. Is there already an existing
systematic review on the topic?
No
Proceed with one if sufficient
evidence has emerged on the topic
Yes
No need
No
A new review is
warranted
Yes
Yes
No need
Is existing review sufficiently
comprehensive and exhaustive of the
topic in terms of databases searched,
any language restrictions or other
restrictions?
Is existing review still current or
up-to-date since it was
undertaken?
Is existing review methodologically sound and of high quality?
Have the various steps of conducting a review been adhered to
or are some key steps missing?
Yes
No need
No
A new review is
warranted
No
A new review is
warranted
10. Steps in conducting a systematic
review
– Question
– Develop protocol
– Identify eligible studies
– Appraise study quality
– Extract data
– Synthesize evidence
– Interpret findings
– Write up
11. • Four broad types of research questions are particularly
appropriate for systematic reviews:
– Questions about the etiology or epidemiology of particular
conditions;
– Questions about the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions
or treatments addressing those conditions; and
– Questions about group differences, either between naturally
occurring groups (i.e., males and females) or between groups
defined by researchers (e.g., between different diagnostic
groups).
– Other types of systematic review questions might focus on
• prevalence of conditions
• changes in conditions over time
• diagnostic test accuracy
• questions related to economic evidence
12. Formulation of research questions
• The PICOS/PECO/PEO framework
– P = Participant
– I/E = Intervention or Exposure
– C = Comparator
– O = Outcome
– S = Study designs
• Good guide to components of well built SR
question
• Enhances identification of relevant studies
13. • Participants
– In terms of disease/condition
– Important characteristics/demographics
• Age
• Sex
• Ethnicity
– Setting
• Facility
• Community
• Developed/Low and middle income countries
15. • Comparison
– The alternative being compared to the
intervention
– Should be specific and limited to one or two
alternatives
16. • Outcome
– Dichotomous or continuous
– Mortality, morbidity, quality of life, effectiveness,
efficiency, efficacy, etc.
• Example:
– ‘‘Is [intervention X1] more effective than
[intervention X2] in addressing [Y outcomes] in [Z
population or context]?’’
17. • Study design
– RCTs
– Cohort
– Case control
– Cross sectional
– Correlational
– Case series
– Case report
18.
19.
20. Features of a Good SR question
• Relevance:
– Policy
– Practice
– Care
– Research
• Feasibility
• Ethically sound
• Novelty
• Narrowness/broadness
22. Developing a Protocol
• After you identified your area of interest
– Refine a topic
– Articulate central questions or hypotheses
– Affix the scope of a review
• Develop a specific inclusion and exclusion criteria
– to clarify central concepts and set the boundaries of a review.
23. Identifying eligible studies
• Get information from the papers
Data bases Grey Literature
• The JBI Library
• The Cochran Library
• Medline
• Embase
• CINAHL
• Mednar
• WorldWideScience
• PsycEXTRA
• Google Scholar
24. SEARCH STRATEGY
• Searching relevant literature
– Identify key words from the identified research
topic
– Use of Boolean operators
• And
• Or
• Not
25. Additional sources
• Reference list of retrieved articles
• Manual searching of relevant publications
• Experts in the field
• Correspondence with first authors of published
studies identified for the systematic review.
26. Search Logistics
Search Strategy
Search Sources
Export citations
to bibliographic
software
• Apply Search Strategy to
databases
• Export to bibliographic
software
– E.g. Endnote
• Document the process
27. Select Studies
• Selection of studies is an initial assessment
• It addresses the question “should the paper
be retrieved?”
• Aims to select only those studies that address
the review question
– Match with the inclusion criteria
• Scan titles and abstracts
• If uncertain? - Retrieve - scan full text
• The selection should be:
– Transparent
– Reproducible
28. Inclusion/exclusion criteria
• Reviewers must determine which studies are
relevant and suitable for inclusion in the
systematic review.
• The criteria for study selection should be
determined ahead of time to the extent
possible,
– Reduce selection
• The specific inclusion criteria will depend on
the study question
– PICOS
29. • Studies will be included, if they fulfill the following
eligibility criteria:
– Study designs:
• Observational analytic
– Study settings:
• All countries
– Participants:
• Men, women & children
– Exposures:
– Outcome measures:
– Publication Status:
• All published data, abstracts and grey literature
– Timings:
• All dates
– Language of Published Articles:
• English language
30. Exclusion Criteria
• Keep log of excluded studies
• Note reasons for exclusion
• Have eligibility checked by more than one
reviewer
• Develop strategy to resolve disagreements
31. Appraise study quality
QUORUM for trails
Moher et al. Randomized controlled trials: The QUORUM
statement. Lancet 1999; 354:1896-1900
MOOSE for observational designs
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. JAMA
2000;283:2008-12
Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS)
A quality score was calculated based on three major
components:
1. selection of the groups of study
2. comparability
3. ascertainment of the exposure and outcome.
32. NOS score
• 7 or more ( a maximum of 7 for cross-sectional
studies)
• 9 for case-control and Cohort studies chosen to
indicate a high standard for comparative
observational studies.
Review with the participants (NOS tool)
• JBI quality appraisal tools for all study design
33. 521 references
317 references
Scanned Ti/Ab
204 duplicates
38 studies
retrieved
279 do not meet
Inclusion criteria
11 do not meet
Inclusion criteria
27 studies for
Critical Appraisal
34. Extract data
• Design and pilot data abstraction form
– Consider more than one reviewers
35. Data abstraction elements
• Publication details
• Study design
• Population details (n, characteristics)
• Intervention details
• Setting
• Outcomes and findings
Sample Data abstraction format is available
http://www.cochrane.org
36. Sample data abstraction form
Author &
year of
publication
Country Objective
of the
study
Study
design
Participants Main
findings
37. • May require manipulating data into common
format
– Calculating estimates not given in study e.g. CI, SE
– Contact authors to request info not given in the
study
• Compare extraction between reviewers
39. Synthesize evidence
• Collation and summary of findings to drive
reliable conclusion
• Consider the strengths of overall evidence
– Consistency of results
– Possible reasons for any inconsistencies
• Can be:
– Narrative-only synthesis
• If we can’t combine the body of evidence statistically
– Quantitative summary-Mata analysis
• If we can combine the body of evidence statistically
40. Qualitative systematic
review (best evidence
synthesis)
The results of primary
studies are
summarized
Not statistically
combined
Described narratively
Still use other
methods to limit bias
Quantitative systematic
review (meta-analysis)
The results of two or
more primary studies
are combined
Statistically combined
• Individual patient data
(IPD)/Pooled analysis
• Aggregate patient data
(APD)
Use methods to limit
bias
43. How do we decide whether to MA?
• It depends on:
– Heterogeneity
• Clinical
• Methodological
– Homogeneity
• Clinical
• Methodological
44. Meta analysis
• Meta analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the
results of multiple scientific studies judged to be
combinable.
• Meta-analyses can be performed when there are multiple
scientific studies addressing the same question, with each
individual study reporting measurements that are expected
to have some degree of error.
• The aim then is to use approaches from statistics to derive
a pooled estimate closest to the unknown common truth
based on how this error is perceived.
• Meta-analytic results are considered the most trustworthy
source of evidence to evidence based practice.
45. Purpose of Meta analysis
• Uses statistics to summarize results of
independent studies
– Provide more precise estimates of the effects of
health care studies than the individual studies
– Facilitates investigation of the consistency and
differences across studies
46. • The goal of a synthesis is to understand the
results of any study in the context of all other
studies.
• First, we need to know whether or not the effect
size is consistent across the body of data.
• The effect size is a value which reflects the
magnitude of the treatment effect or the strength
of a relationship between two variables.
47. • It is the unit of currency in a meta-analysis.
• It is used as the dependent (outcome) variable
in a meta-analysis.
• We compute the effect size for each study,
and then work with the effect sizes to assess
the consistency of the effect across studies
and to compute a summary effect.
49. • The effect size could represent the impact of an
intervention, such as
– the impact of medical treatment on risk of infection,
– the impact of a teaching method on test scores,
• The effect size is not limited to the impact of
interventions, but could represent any
relationship between two variables, such as
– the difference in test scores for males versus females,
– the difference in cancer rates for persons exposed or
not exposed to second-hand smoke, or
– the difference in cardiac events for persons with two
distinct personality types.
• In fact, what we generally call an effect size could
refer simply to the estimate of a single value.
50. • Common Effect size metrics:
– Odds ratio
– Relative risk ratio
– Risk difference
– Correlation coefficient
– Hazard ratio
– Proportion
– Measure of central tendency (mean, median)
– Unstandardized mean difference
– Standardized mean difference
51. How to choose an effect size
• There are three major considerations:
– The effect sizes from the different studies should be
comparable to one another in the sense that they
measure (at least approximately) the same thing
– Estimates of the effect size should be computable
from the information that is likely to be reported in
published research reports.
– The effect size should have good technical
properties
• Sampling distribution should be known so that variances
and confidence intervals can be computed
52. Fixed Effect and Random Effect Models
• Most meta-analyses are based on one of two
statistical models,
– Fixed-effect model or
– Random-effects model
53.
54. Fixed Effect Model
• Under the fixed-effect model we assume that:
– All studies in the meta-analysis share a common
(true) effect size.
OR
– All factors that could influence the effect size are the
same in all the studies, and therefore the true effect
size is the same (hence the label fixed) in all the
studies.
• Since all studies share the same true effect, it
follows that the observed effect size varies from
one study to the next only because of the
random error inherent in each study.
55. PERFORMING A FIXED-EFFECT META-
ANALYSIS
• In an actual meta-analysis we start with the
observed effects and trying to estimate the
population effect.
• In order to obtain the most precise estimate
of the population effect (to minimize the
variance) we compute a weighted mean,
where the weight assigned to each study is
the inverse of that study’s variance.
56. • Concretely, the weight assigned to each study in a
fixed-effect meta-analysis is
Wi =
1
𝑉𝑌𝑖
, where, VYi is the within-study variance for
study (i)
• The weighted mean (M) is then computed as
• that is, the sum of the products WiYi (weight
multiplied by effect size) divided by the sum of
the weights
57. • The variance of the summary effect is
estimated as the reciprocal of the sum of the
weights, or
• And the estimated standard error of the
summary effect is then the square root of the
variance,
58. • Then, 95% lower and upper limits for the
summary effect are estimated as:
LLM = M – 1.96 * SEM
and
ULM = M + 1.96 * SEM
• Finally, a Z-value to test the null hypothesis
that the common true effect is zero can be
computed using
59. Random Effects Model
• Under the random-effects model we allow
that the true effect could vary from study to
study (randomly distributed).
• For example, the effect size might be higher
(or lower) in studies where the participants
are older, or more educated, or healthier
than in others, or when a more intensive
variant of an intervention is used, and so on.
60. PERFORMING A RANDOM-EFFECTS
META-ANALYSIS
• Our goal is to use the collection of Yi to
estimate the overall mean, μ.
• In order to obtain the most precise estimate
of the overall mean (to minimize the variance)
we compute a weighted mean, where the
weight assigned to each study is the inverse of
that study’s variance.
61. • More generally, the observed effect Yi for any
study is given by the grand mean, the deviation of
the study’s true effect from the grand mean, and
the deviation of the study’s observed effect from
the study’s true effect.
• To compute a study’s variance under the random-
effects model, we need to know both the within-
study variance and T2 , since the study’s total
variance is the sum of these two values.
62. • The parameter T2 (tau-squared) is the
between-studies variance (the variance of the
effect size parameters across the population
of studies).
• In other words, if we somehow knew the true
effect size for each study, and computed the
variance of these effect sizes (across an
infinite number of studies), this variance
would be T2.
63. • T2 is estimated by using the moments (or the
DerSimonian and Laird) method, as follows:
Where, and
Q statistic (a measure of weighted squared
deviations)
64. Estimating the mean effect size
• Under the random-effects model the weight
assigned to each study is
• where VYi* is the within-study variance for
study i plus the between-studies variance, T2 .
That is,
65. • The weighted mean, M*, is then computed as
• That is, the sum of the products (weight
multiplied by effect size) divided by the sum of
the weights.
66. • The variance of the summary effect is
estimated as the reciprocal of the sum of the
weights, or
• and the estimated standard error of the
summary effect is then the square root of the
variance,
67. • The 95% lower and upper limits for the
summary effect would be computed as
LLM* = M* - 1:96 x SEM*
and
ULM* = M* + 1:96 x SEM*
• Finally, a Z-value to test the null hypothesis
that the mean effect μ is zero could be
computed using
68. WHICH MODEL SHOULD WE USE?
• Fixed effect
• We use the fixed-effect model if two
conditions are met
– First, we believe that all the studies included in
the analysis are functionally identical.
– Second, our goal is to compute the common effect
size for the identified population, and not to
generalize to other populations.
69. • Random effects
– If the goal of analysis is usually to generalize to a
range of scenarios.
– If the data is gathered from the published
literature, the random effects model is generally a
more plausible match
70. Tests for heterogeneity
• The usual way of assessing whether there is true
heterogeneity in a meta - analysis is the Q-test and I-square
• The classical measure of heterogeneity is Cochran’s Q,
which is calculated as the weighted sum of squared
differences between individual study effects and the pooled
effect across studies, with the weights being those used in
the pooling method.
• The classical measure of heterogeneity is Cochran’s Q,
which is calculated as the weighted sum of squared
differences between individual study effects and the pooled
effect across studies, with the weights being those used in
the pooling method.
71. • I-square …… very low-------fixed model
– The I² statistic describes the percentage of
variation across studies that is due to
heterogeneity rather than chance.
– I² = 100% x (Q-df)/Q
– I² is an intuitive and simple expression of the
inconsistency of studies’ results.
• The purpose of this test was to assess the
extent of variation between the sample
estimates.
72. Tests for publication bias
• Egger’s test is commonly used to assess potential
publication bias in a meta-analysis via funnel plot
asymmetry
• It is test is a linear regression of the intervention
effect estimates on their standard errors
weighted by their inverse variance.
• A funnel plot is a scatter plot of treatment effect
against a measure of study precision.
• It is used primarily as a visual aid for detecting
bias or systematic heterogeneity.
• A symmetric inverted funnel shape arises from a
‘well-behaved’ data set, in which publication bias
is unlikely.