Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 468

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Individual patient‐ versus group‐level data meta‐regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head

Berlin, Jesse A., Santanna, Jill, Schmid, Christopher H., Szczech, Lynda A., Feldman, Harold I.·2002·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.1023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When performing a meta‐analysis, interest often centres on finding explanations for heterogeneity in the data, rather than on producing a single summary estimate. Such exploratory analyses are frequently undertaken with published, study‐level data, using techniques of meta‐analytic regression. Our goal was to explore a real‐world example for which both published, group‐level and individual patient‐level data were available, and to compare the substantive conclusions reached by both methods. We studied the benefits of anti‐lymphocyte antibody induction therapy among renal transplant patients in five randomized trials, focusing on whether there are subgroups of patients in whom therapy might prove particularly beneficial. Allograft failure within 5 years was the endpoint studied. We used a variety of analytic approaches to the group‐level data, including weighted least‐squares regression (N=5 studies), logistic regression (N=628, the total number of subjects), and a hierarchical Bayesian approach. We fit logistic regression models to the patient‐level data. In the patient‐level analysis, we found that treatment was significantly more effective among patients with elevated (20 per cent or more) panel reactive antibodies (PRA) than among patients without elevated PRA. These patients comprise a small (about 15 per cent of patients) subgroup of patients that benefited from therapy. The group‐level analyses failed to detect this interaction. We recommend using individual patient data, when feasible, to study patient characteristics, in order to avoid the potential for ecological bias introduced by group‐level analyses. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.1023

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Berlin, J. A., Santanna, J., Schmid, C. H., Szczech, L. A., & Feldman, H. I.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-01-22
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
371-387
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.1023
OpenAlex
W2136618123
Cited by
468
References
8
FWCI
12.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.