Is the Risk Difference Really a More Heterogeneous Measure?

Epidemiology

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 714-718

  Poole, Charlie ^a   Shrier, Ian ^b,c   VanDerWeele, Tyler J ^d  

^a IL   (United States)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MONTREAL GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; HUMAN; NULL HYPOTHESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REMISSION; RISK; EPIDEMIOLOGY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); ODDS RATIO; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CAUSALITY; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; ODDS RATIO; PROBABILITY; RISK;

EID: 84940038058     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000354     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Rizvi AZ, Murad MH, Fairman RM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. The effect of left subclavian artery coverage on morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50:1159-1169.
2. The Four Artemisinin-Based Combinations (4ABC) Study Group. A head-to-head comparison of four artemisinin-based combinations for treating uncomplicated malaria in African children: a randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2011;8: e1001119.
3. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 20120 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726-732.
4. Vedula SS, Altman DG. Effect size as an essential component of statistical analysis. Arch Surg. 2010;145:401-402.
5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 7: rating the quality of evidence-inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;65: 1294-1302.
6. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. 4th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005;86.
7. Eckermann S, Coory M, Willan AR. Consistently estimating absolute risk difference when translating evidence to jurisdictions of interest. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:87-96.
8. Barkun AN, Bardou M, Pham CQ, Martel M. Proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress-related mucosal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:507-520; quiz 521.
9. Bro?ek JL, Bousquet J, Baena-Cagnani CE, et al. Comments on allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) guidelines: reply. J Allerg Clin Immunol. 2011;127:1643-1645.
10. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47: 881-889.
11. Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ. 1995;311:1356-1359.
12. McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:712-720.
13. Walter SD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:931-939.
14. Katerndahl DA, Lawler WR. Variability in meta-analytic results concerning the value of cholesterol reduction in coronary heart disease: a metameta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:429-441.
15. Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 metaanalyses. Stat Med. 2000;19:1707-1728.
16. Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1046-1055.
17. Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for metaanalysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2002;21: 1575-1600.
18. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Effect measures for meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes. In M Egger, G Davey Smith, DG Altman (Eds.), Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 2003:313-335.
19. Demidenko E. Sample size and optimal design for logistic regression with binary interaction. Stat Med. 2008;27:36-46.
20. VanderWeele TJ. Sample size and power calculations for additive interactions. Epidemiol Methods. 2015;1:159-188.
21. Greenland S. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Stat Med. 1983;2:243-251.
22. Wahlsten D. Sample size to detect a planned contrast and a one degree-offreedom interaction effect. Psychol Bull. 1991;110:587-595.
23. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-1558.
24. Sutton AJ, Higgins JP. Recent developments in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2008;27:625-650.
25. Higgins JPT. Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1158-1160.