
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>pmid: 7907813
AbstractThe usual meta‐analysis of a sequence of randomized clinical trials only considers the difference between two treatments and produces a point estimate and a confidence interval for a parameter that measures this difference. The usual parameter is the log)odds ratio( linked to Mantel–Haenszel methodology. Inference is made either under the assumption of homogeneity or in a random effects model that takes account of heterogeneity between trials. This paper has two goals. The first is to present a likelihood based method for the estimation of the parameters in the random effects model, which avoids the use of approximating Normal distributions. The second goal is to extend this method to a bivariate random effects model, in which the effects in both groups are supposed random. In this way inference can be made about the relationship between improvement and baseline effect. The method is demonstrated by a meta‐analysis dataset of Collins and Langman.
Analysis of Variance, Likelihood Functions, Models, Statistical, Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage, Histamine H2 Antagonists, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Analysis of Variance, Likelihood Functions, Models, Statistical, Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage, Histamine H2 Antagonists, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 286 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 0.1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
