Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: RE: Question regarding meta-analysis for proportions.
From
Nora Trabulsi <[email protected]>
To
"<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: st: RE: Question regarding meta-analysis for proportions.
Date
Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:28:35 +0000
Thanks Austin
The problem in my case is that I cannot use OR as there are no "unexposed" group. It is a meta analysis of phase 2 trials, in which all patients receive the intervention of interest and then the response(yes/no) rates are calculated, and that's why I thought of choosing proportions as the effect estimate.
I have no experience with bayesian analysis in stata, however your approach sounds interesting and challenging! I must read about Bayesian in stata and give it a try and let you know.
Thanks again
Nora
Sent from my iPhone
On 2011-07-30, at 9:34 AM, "Austin Nichols" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nora Trabulsi <[email protected]> :
> If you are working on a log odds scale as you should for meta-analysis
> of proportions, you will have problems with the point estimate, not
> just the standard error. One way forward would be to use the mean and
> variance of the posterior distribution in a Bayesian framework, with a
> uniform prior in each study. Probably true Bayesians would object to
> this miscegenation of Bayesian and frequentist approaches, but I am
> betting that if you simulate the approach, it dominates others in
> terms of MSE. It does not seem justifiable to remove the 2 studies
> with the highest outcome from the analysis since you will introduce
> bias by selecting on the outcome.
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Nora Trabulsi
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thanks for your response
>>
>> Yes, this is with using binomial exact. When I generated the proportions and their standard errors, the results shown in the the stata window shows "binomial exact".
>> Here is the output:
>>
>> -- Binomial Exact --
>> Variable Obs Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
>>
>> 5 1 0 .4781762 1*
>>
>> (*) one-sided, 97.5% confidence interval
>>
>> -- Binomial Exact --
>> Variable Obs Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
>>
>> 4 1 0 .3976354 1*
>>
>>
>>
>> So what do you think?
>>
>> Nora
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2011-07-28, at 3:38 PM, Forshee, Richard wrote:
>>
>>> Have you considered using exact binomial confidence intervals instead of the approximation to the Normal distribution?
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard A. Forshee
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nora Trabulsi
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:36 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: st: Question regarding meta-analysis for proportions.
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I am doing a meta analysis on proportions of patients responding to specific treatment. I generated p(proportions) and se(standard errors). Then , I used the metan command:
>>>
>>> metan p se, random
>>>
>>> The problem that I have encountered is that two of the studies that are included in the analysis had a response rate of 100%, however, they were small in size, 4 and 5 patients only. So this generated a problem as they had standard errors = zero and they were excluded form the analysis and forest plot.
>>>
>>> I tried to use the inverse weight command before running metan:
>>>
>>> gen cons=1
>>> vwls p cons, sd(se)
>>>
>>> but it would still address the same problem, that std error theta cannot be negative or zero.
>>>
>>> Any idea how to solve this problem, or is it justifiable to remove those 2 studies from the analysis?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Nora Trabulsi
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/