Literature DB >> 10440880

Simple methods for checking for possible errors in reported odds ratios, relative risks and confidence intervals.

P N Lee1.   

Abstract

Meta-analyses of data from epidemiological studies are often based on odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) and their 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs) as reported by the authors. Where possible ORs, RRs and CIs should be checked against the source data. Some simple methods are presented for checking the validity of reported ORs, RRs and CIs where the source data are not available. These methods include inferring the minimum total number of subjects in the study, the minimum total number of cases and the minimum number there must be in any disease/exposure category. Examples taken from the literature on environmental tobacco smoke exposure (ETS) illustrate that errors in published data are not infrequent and may stay undetected in meta-analyses. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10440880     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990815)18:15<1973::aid-sim166>3.0.co;2-g

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  4 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer.

Authors:  Peter N Lee; Barbara A Forey; Katharine J Coombs
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2012-09-03       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 2.  Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence relating smoking to COPD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

Authors:  Barbara A Forey; Alison J Thornton; Peter N Lee
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 3.317

Review 3.  Overstating the evidence: double counting in meta-analysis and related problems.

Authors:  Stephen J Senn
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 4.  Menopausal status and the risk of lung cancer in women: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lingfeng Min; Fang Wang; Sudong Liang; Junjun Yang; Xingxiang Xu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.889

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.