[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Tom Trikalinos" <ttrikalin@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ |

Date |
Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400 |

I assumed that you have roger harbord's _metareg_ (>=v2.2.6 (?) - 10Dec2004). There was a previous version by stephen sharp... I do not recall any specifics for the older command though. tom On 7/23/07, Tom Trikalinos <ttrikalin@gmail.com> wrote:

In the absence of covariates _metareg_ does a random effects meta-analysis, indeed. However, with a different method than _meta_ (using the default settings for _metareg_): _metareg_ uses REML to get the tau^2 estimate (between study variance) _meta_ is using the DerSimonian and Laird method To get the same results use the following syntax: metareg beta , wsse(SE) mm z where mm--> uses the method-of-moments estimate for tau^2, aka the DerSimonian and Laird method z --> uses the z and not the t disrtibution to get the SE and the CIs tom On 7/23/07, Tiffany Davenport <tiffany.davenport@yale.edu> wrote: > I am using the 'meta' and 'metareg' commands for meta-analysis in Stata. As > I understand it (and as previously posted) the pooled random effects > estimate obtained by using the 'meta' command should be the same as the > constant obtained in meta-regression analysis ('metareg') of a model with no > covariates. I am finding that the values of these estimates as well as > their confidence intervals differ slightly. I have entered the following > syntax: > > "meta beta SE" - for the meta command and > > "metareg beta, wsse(SE)" for the meta-regression command > > 1. Shouldn't the pooled random effects estimate from 'meta' be the same as > the coefficient for the constant from 'metareg,' and shouldn't the > confidence intervals be the same? If not, I would appreciate any insight > into why the two commands would generate different estimates with different > standard errors. Are they weighted differently? Are adjustments to the > syntax of either command necessary to ensure the intercepts and confidence > intervals match? > > 2. Is it possible to display more decimal places in the 'meta' output? > > Thanks very much for any help. > > > * > * For searches and help try: > * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html > * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq > * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ >

* * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ***From:*"Tiffany Davenport" <tiffany.davenport@yale.edu>

**References**:**st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ***From:*"Tiffany Davenport" <tiffany.davenport@yale.edu>

**Re: st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ***From:*"Tom Trikalinos" <ttrikalin@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: Splitting numeric values** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |