• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • UMass Chan Departments, Programs and Centers
    • UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science
    • UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science Supported Publications
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • UMass Chan Departments, Programs and Centers
    • UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science
    • UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science Supported Publications
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of eScholarship@UMassChanCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsUMass Chan AffiliationsTitlesDocument TypesKeywordsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsUMass Chan AffiliationsTitlesDocument TypesKeywords

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Help

    AboutSubmission GuidelinesData Deposit PolicySearchingAccessibilityTerms of UseWebsite Migration FAQ

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Meta-Analysis of Odds Ratios: Current Good Practices

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Authors
    Chang, Bei-Hung
    Hoaglin, David C.
    UMass Chan Affiliations
    Department of Quantitative Health Sciences
    Document Type
    Journal Article
    Publication Date
    2017-04-01
    Keywords
    UMCCTS funding
    Biostatistics
    Health Services Research
    Translational Medical Research
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Link to Full Text
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5352535/
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: Many systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials lead to meta-analyses of odds ratios (ORs). The customary methods of estimating an overall OR involve weighted averages of the individual trials' estimates of the logarithm of the OR. That approach, however, has several shortcomings, arising from assumptions and approximations, that render the results unreliable. Although the problems have been documented in the literature for many years, the conventional methods persist in software and applications. A well-developed alternative approach avoids the approximations by working directly with the numbers of subjects and events in the arms of the individual trials. OBJECTIVE: We aim to raise awareness of methods that avoid the conventional approximations, can be applied with widely available software, and produce more-reliable results. METHODS: We summarize the fixed-effect and random-effects approaches to meta-analysis; describe conventional, approximate methods and alternative methods; apply the methods in a meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials of endoscopic sclerotherapy in patients with cirrhosis and esophagogastric varices; and compare the results. We demonstrate the use of SAS, Stata, and R software for the analysis. RESULTS: In the example, point estimates and confidence intervals for the overall log-odds-ratio differ between the conventional and alternative methods, in ways that can affect inferences. Programming is straightforward in the 3 software packages; an appendix, Suppemental Digital Content 1 (http://links.lww.com/MLR/B335) gives the details. CONCLUSIONS: The modest additional programming required should not be an obstacle to adoption of the alternative methods. Because their results are unreliable, use of the conventional methods for meta-analysis of ORs should be discontinued.
    Source

    Med Care. 2017 Apr;55(4):328-335. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000696. Link to article on publisher's site

    DOI
    10.1097/MLR.0000000000000696
    Permanent Link to this Item
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/50530
    PubMed ID
    28169977
    Related Resources

    Link to Article in PubMed

    ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
    10.1097/MLR.0000000000000696
    Scopus Count
    Collections
    UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science Supported Publications

    entitlement

    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Lamar Soutter Library, UMass Chan Medical School | 55 Lake Avenue North | Worcester, MA 01655 USA
    Quick Guide | escholarship@umassmed.edu
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.