Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

# Re: st: RE: Question regarding meta-analysis for proportions.

 From Nora Trabulsi To "" 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: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Nora Trabulsi
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:36 PM
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> 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/
```