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

From |
"Tiffany Davenport" <tiffany.davenport@yale.edu> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

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

Date |
Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:45:38 -0400 |

This syntax works. Thanks very much. Tiffany -----Original Message----- From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Trikalinos Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:17 PM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: Re: st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ 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/ * * 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/

**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>

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

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: truncreg problem and the reasons** - Next by Date:
**st: RV: RE: RV: RE: Sum over all possible combinations** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: 'Meta' and 'Metareg' Coefficients & CIs Differ** - Next by thread:
**SPAM (13.3) Don't waste time to visit local pills store** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |