| Literature DB >> 31957472 |
Andrew A Plumb1, Steve Halligan1, Susan Mallett2.
Abstract
Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses concern the effect of a healthcare intervention on a binary outcome i.e. occurrence (or not) of a particular event. Usually, the overall effect, pooled across all studies included in the meta-analysis, is summarised using the odds ratio (OR) or the relative risk (RR). Under most circumstances, it is obvious how to identify what should be considered as the event of interest-for example, death or a clinically important side-effect. However, on occasion it may not be clear in which "direction" the event should be specified-such as attendance (vs non-attendance) at cancer screening. Usually, this choice is not critical to the overall conclusion of the meta-analysis, but occasionally it can lead to differences in how the included studies are pooled, ultimately affecting the overall meta-analytic result, particularly when using RRs rather than ORs. In this commentary, we will explain this phenomenon in more detail using examples from the literature, and explore how analysts and readers can avoid some potential pitfalls.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31957472 PMCID: PMC7362907 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Radiol ISSN: 0007-1285 Impact factor: 3.039