1992
DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-q
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
637
0
1

Year Published

1995
1995
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,146 publications
(641 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
637
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, these data are often not available. In these cases, standard errors were estimated using methods described by Follmann et al (1992). Correlations between repeated outcomes were estimated from P-values when available and, when unavailable, the lowest estimate from other studies was used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these data are often not available. In these cases, standard errors were estimated using methods described by Follmann et al (1992). Correlations between repeated outcomes were estimated from P-values when available and, when unavailable, the lowest estimate from other studies was used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If a study reported significant findings with a non-exact P value (i.e., P Ͻ 0.05 or P Ͻ 0.01), assigned values of P ϭ 0.05 and P ϭ 0.01, respectively, were used (30,31). For nonsignificant findings reported with a non-exact P value, a paired correlation value of r ϭ 0.5 to calculate the SD of the change was used (32)(33)(34)(35). To evaluate the robustness of this imputation method, 3 sensitivity analyses were performed while using the highest or lowest reported correlation from included studies, and while excluding studies with imputed data.…”
Section: Moyer Et Almentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We imputed standard deviations of changes where these were not available using the method recommended in the Cochrane handbook (Section 16.1.3.2) (Higgins and Green, 2009). A correlation coefficient of 0.5 was assumed between baseline and follow-up measurements (Follmann et al, 1992). We performed a fixed effects meta-analysis unless there was significant heterogeneity in which case we used a random effects model with appropriate cautious interpretation.…”
Section: Meta-analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%