Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: proportion meta-analysis

From   David Hoaglin <>
Subject   Re: st: proportion meta-analysis
Date   Mon, 1 Apr 2013 08:50:50 -0400


In data involving rare events, several papers have reported that
replacing 0 by 0.5 does not give satisfactory results.  You may want
to look at the paper by Cai et al. (2010), though I do not know that
their approach has been implemented for Stata.  Another place to look
is the book by Kulinskaya et al. (2008).

David Hoaglin

Cai T, Parast L, Ryan L. Meta-analysis for rare events. Statistics in
Medicine 2010; 29:2078-2089.

Kulinskaya E, Morgenthaler S, Staudte RG. Meta analysis.  John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd., 2008.

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:54 PM, MOHAMMED HASSAN AL-TEMIMI
<> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am conducting meta-analysis of case series to identify the rate of complications following a surgical procedure that can be conducted in two different ways (laparoscopic vs. open). I have the following questions:
> 1.      Some of the case series reported zero rate of complications for the laparoscopic procedure. When I am running the analysis using 'metaan' command and random effect model, the analysis does not go through because the standard error for the case series with 'zero' rate is 'zero'. How can I include the result from the latter case series (with zero rate of complication) in the meta-analysis?
> 2.      In the other arm (open group), when I do the forest plot, the lower bound of the confidence interval is less than zero in some instances, how can I truncate the lower bound in the forest plot to zero?
> Thanks,

*   For searches and help try:

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