Reporting cumulative proportion of subjects with an adverse event based on data from multiple studies

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 3-7

  Chuang Stein, Christy ^a,b   Beltangady, Mohan ^a,b  

^a Pfizer Inc ^*

^b PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

CMH weighting; meta analysis; Simpson's Paradox; study size adjustment method

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PARADOXICAL DRUG REACTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 79551566730     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.397     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Julious SA, Mullee MA,. Confounding and Simpson's Paradox. British Medical Journal 1994; 309 (6967): 1480-1481.
2. Rucker G, Schumacher M,. Simpson's Paradox visualized: the example of the Rosiglitazone meta-analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008; 8: 34. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/34.
3. Dmitrienko A, Molenberghs G, Chuang-Stein C, Offen W., Analysis of Clinical Trials Using SAS: A Practical Guide. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, 2005.
4. Mehrotra DV, Railkar R,. Minimum risk weights for comparing treatments in stratified binomial trials. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19: 811-825. (Pubitemid 30187377)
5. Greenland S,. Collapsibility. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Armitage R, Colton T (eds). 1998; 786-788.
6. FDA Pre-marketing Risk Assessment. (2005). Available at:.
7. FDA the Format and Content of the Clinical and Statistical Section of an Application. (1988). Available at:.