Comments on 'Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis'

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1266-1267

  Laird, Nan ^a   Fitzmaurice, Garrett ^a,b   Ding, Xiao ^c  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b MCLEAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE; BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; EFFECT SIZE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; PUBLISHING; RANDOM SAMPLE; SAMPLE SIZE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOSTATISTICS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NASAL DECONGESTANTS; PHENYLEPHRINE; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 77952840729     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3657     Document Type: Note

References (7)

1. Shuster J. Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2009; this volume.
2. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986; 7(3):177-188.
3. Cochran WG. Adjustments in analysis. In Planning and Analysis of Observational Studies, Moses LE, Mosteller F (eds). Wiley: New York, 1983; 102-108.
4. Emerson JD, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F. A comparison of procedures for combining risk differences in sets of 2x2 tables from clinical trials. Journal of the Italian Statistical Society 1993; 2:269-290.
5. Emerson JD, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F. Simple robust procedures for combining risk differences in sets of 2x2 tables. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15:1465-1488. (Pubitemid 26252611)
6. Follmann DA, Proschan MA. Valid inference in random effects meta-analysis. Biometrics 1999; 55:732-737.
7. Kollar C, Schneider H, Waksman J, Krusinska E. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of a single dose of phenylephrine 10mg compared with placebo in adults with acute nasal congestion due to the common cold. Clinical Therapeutics 2007; 29(6):1057-1070.