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
Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:48:20 +0000
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/
*
* 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/