Metaprop: A Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data

Archives of Public Health

Volumn 72, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-10

  Nyaga, Victoria N ^a   Arbyn, Marc ^a   Aerts, Marc ^b  

^a SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Belgium)

^b HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Binomial; Confidence intervals; Freeman tukey double arcsine transformation; Logistic normal; Meta analysis; Stata

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971529363     PISSN: 07787367     EISSN: 20493258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Agresti A, Coull BA: Approximate is better than 'exact' for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 1998, 52(2):119-126.
2. Breslow NE, Clayton DG: Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J AmStat Assoc 1993, 88:9-25.
3. Miller JJ: The inverse of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. AmStat 1978, 32(4):138.
4. Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T: The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:41-51.
5. Molenberghs G, Verbeke G, Iddib S, Demétrio CGB: A combined beta and normal random-effects model for repeated, over-dispersed binary and binomial data. JMultivar Anal 2012, 111:94-109.
6. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986, 7:177-188.
7. Engel E, Keen A: A simple approach for the analysis of generalized linear mixed models. Stat Neerl 1994, 48:1-22.
8. Molenberghs G, Verbeke G, Demétrio CGB, Vieira AMC: A family of generalized linearmodels for repeatedmeasures with normal and conjugate randomeffects. Stat Sci 2010, 3:325-347.
9. Jackson D, Bowden J, Baker R: How does the Dersimonian and Laird procedure for randomeffectsmeta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts? J Stat Plan Inference 2010, 140:961-970.
10. Harris R, Bradburn M, Deeks J, Harbord R, Altman D, Sterne J: metan:fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J 2008, 8(1):3-28.
11. Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG: Statistics for experimenters. Hoboken (NJ), USA: J Wiley & Sons Inc, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics; 1978.
12. Freeman MF, Tukey JW: Transformations related to the angular and the square root. AnnMath Stats 1950, 21(4):607-611.
13. Clopper CJ, Pearson ES: The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934, 26(4):404-413.
14. Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A: Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci 2001, 16:404-413.
15. Newcombe RG: Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of sevenmethods. Stat Med 1998, 17:857-872.
16. Wilson EB: Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J AmStat Assoc 1927, 22(158):209-212.
17. Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Buntinx F, Ranst MV, Paraskevaidis E, Dillner J:Triage of women with equivocal or low-grade cervical cytology results ameta-analysis of the hpv test positivity rate. J CellMolMed 2009, 13(4):648-659.
18. Dolman L, Sauvaget C, Muwonge R, Sankaranarayanan R: Meta-analysis of the efficacy of cold coagulation as a treatmentmethod for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasis: a systematic review. BJOG 2014, 121:929-942.
19. Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJLM, Poljak M, Ogilvie G, Koliopoulos G, Naucler P, Sankaranarayanan R, Petok J: Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 2012, 30(Suppl 5):F88-F99.
20. Arbyn M, Roelens J, Simoens C, Buntinx F, Paraskevaidis E, Martin-Hirsch PP, Prendiville WJ: Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 3(CD008054):1-201.
21. Westfall PH, Young SS: Resampling-based multiple testing: examples and methods for P-value adjustment. Hoboken (NJ), USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1993.