Article

Facilitating meta-analyses by deriving relative effect and precision estimates for alternative comparisons from a set of estimates presented by exposure level or disease category.

P.N. Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd., 17 Cedar Road, Sutton, Surrey, U.K.
Statistics in Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.04). 04/2008; 27(7):954-70. DOI:10.1002/sim.3013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Epidemiological studies relating a particular exposure to a specified disease may present their results in a variety of ways. Often, results are presented as estimated odds ratios (or relative risks) and confidence intervals (CIs) for a number of categories of exposure, for example, by duration or level of exposure, compared with a single reference category, often the unexposed. For systematic literature review, and particularly meta-analysis, estimates for an alternative comparison of the categories, such as any exposure versus none, may be required. Obtaining these alternative comparisons is not straightforward, as the initial set of estimates is correlated. This paper describes a method for estimating these alternative comparisons based on the ideas originally put forward by Greenland and Longnecker, and provides implementations of the method, developed using Microsoft Excel and SAS. Examples of the method based on studies of smoking and cancer are given. The method also deals with results given by categories of disease (such as histological types of a cancer). The method allows the use of a more consistent comparison when summarizing published evidence, thus potentially improving the reliability of a meta-analysis.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
27 Views
  • European journal of clinical nutrition 01/2014; · 3.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relationship between risk of glioma and alcohol consumption has been widely studied, but results have been conflicting. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies to systematically assess the relationship between alcohol drinking and risk of glioma. Two electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to 8 August 2013 to identify pertinent studies that linked alcohol drinking with glioma risk. We used a random-effects model to calculate the overall relative risk (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Fifteen case-control and four cohort studies were identified for this analysis. The combined RR for total alcohol drinkers versus non-drinkers was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.89-1.04). In the subgroup analysis by geographic area, a significant association was observed in North American studies (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.93), but not in European or Asian/Australian studies. In the subgroup analysis by study design, a borderline significant association emerged in population-based case-control studies (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99), but not in hospital-based case-control studies (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.01) or cohort group (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.88-1.20). Our results show no material association between alcohol consumption and risk of glioma existed. Further prospective evidences are needed to confirm this association.
    Nutrients 01/2014; 6(2):504-16. · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies of the association between excess body weight and risk of meningioma have produced inconsistent results. Therefore, a meta-analysis of published studies was performed to better assess the association between meningioma and excess body weight. A literature search was conducted in the PubMed and EMBASE databases without any limitations. The reference lists of identified articles were also screened for additional studies. The summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. A total of 6 studies provided risk estimates for overweight or obesity. Overall, the combined RRs were 1.12 (95% CI = 0.98-1.28) for overweight and 1.45 (95% CI = 1.26-1.67) for obesity. After stratification by gender, no significant association was observed for obese men (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.64-2.62), while significant association was detected for obese women (RR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.26-1.69). No substantial differences emerged across strata of study design and geographic areas. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that obesity but not overweight is associated with an increased risk of meningioma. Due to the limited number of studies, further research is needed to confirm the association.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(2):e90167. · 3.73 Impact Factor