2002
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1205
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Meta‐analysis combining parallel and cross‐over clinical trials. I: Continuous outcomes

Abstract: Among clinical trials assessing a given treatment, often parallel and cross-over designs are used together. In the first paper of a series of three, we explore two methods to pool continuous outcomes in a meta-analysis combining parallel and cross-over trial designs: the weighted mean difference (WMD) and the standardized weighted mean difference (SWMD). The combined design meta-analytic formulae are based on a weighted average of the two design treatment estimates. A random effects model can be implemented. B… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
103
0
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 192 publications
(104 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
103
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We tried to incorporate the two different study designs used (crossover and parallel) into the meta-analysis [21,22]. One of the prerequisites for using a crossover study is that the mean difference (or the difference between means) of the treatments is available.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We tried to incorporate the two different study designs used (crossover and parallel) into the meta-analysis [21,22]. One of the prerequisites for using a crossover study is that the mean difference (or the difference between means) of the treatments is available.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To estimate standard errors of change scores using the formula described by Elbourne et al, 6 we assumed conservatively that the correlation between before and after tests to be 0.5, which is common for crossover trials. 3 All statistical testing used the generic inverse variance method 8 and were performed by Review Manager 4.2.7 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). 17 Results were considered statistically significant if PϽ.05.…”
Section: Data Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the numbers for n AB and n BA were not reported, we assumed that the sample was split half for the two sequences. For Hedges' g an SE was calculated as follows: 146,147 SE ¼ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi n AB þ n BA 4n AB Ã n BA þ Hedges'g 2 2ðn AB þ n BA À 3:94Þ s…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%