Plumb, A;
Halligan, S;
Mallett, S;
(2020)
The choice and definition of summary measure for meta-analysis of clinical studies with binary outcomes: Effect on clinical interpretation.
British Journal of Radiology
, 93
(1108)
, Article 20190976. 10.1259/bjr.20190976.
Preview |
Text
Halligan_The choice and definition of summary measure for meta-analysis of clinical studies with binary outcomes_AAM.pdf - Accepted Version Download (2MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses concern the effect of a healthcare intervention on a binary outcome i.e. occurrence (or not) of a particular event. Usually, the overall effect, pooled across all studies included in the meta-analysis, is summarised using the odds ratio (OR) or the relative risk (RR). Under most circumstances, it is obvious how to identify what should be considered as the event of interest - for example, death or a clinically-important side-effect. However, on occasion it may not be clear in which "direction" the event should be specified - such as attendance ( vs non-attendance) at cancer screening. Usually, this choice is not critical to the overall conclusion of the meta-analysis, but occasionally it can lead to differences in how the included studies are pooled, ultimately affecting the overall meta-analytic result, particularly when using relative risks rather than odds ratios. In this commentary, we will explain this phenomenon in more detail using examples from the literature, and explore how analysts and readers can avoid some potential pitfalls.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
