Approach to some data preparation problems in systematic review and meta-analysis
Stevens, R. J.; Little, F.
Show abstract
In systematic review, the measures reported by the primary studies may not always be the measures sought by the systematic review investigators. Motivated by an systematic review of interventions to reduce meat consumption, we discuss here methods to infer relative risks and confidence intervals from randomized controlled trials that reported differences, possibly in the presence of repeated measures or multiple interventions.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 93%
- Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions 93%
- Using collaboration networks to identify authorship bias in meta-analyses 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Data-driven Prior Elicitation for Bayes Factors in Cox Regression for Nine Subfields in Biomedicine 93%
- A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease 93%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 93%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 92%
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating and Testing an Index of Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes in Comparative Studies 94%
- Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: a meta-research study 91%
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.