Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials

Berlin, Jesse A., Laird, Nan M., Sacks, Henry S., Chalmers, Thomas C.·1989·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.4780080202
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We compare two statistical methods for combining event rates from several studies. Both methods treat each study as a separate stratum. The Peto‐modified Mantel—Haenszel (Peto) method estimates a combined odds ratio assuming homogeneity across strata and provides a test for heterogeneity. The DerSimonian and Laird modified Cochran method (D&L) produces a weighted average of rate differences, where the weights allow for among‐study variability. We analyse 22 meta‐analyses from ten reports by both methods. The pooled estimates are divided by their standard errors to produce a Z‐statistic. A t‐test comparing Z‐statistics from all 22 studies suggests that the D&L method tends to be more conservative [d(Peto—D&L) = 0.29, t = 2.53, p = 0.02]. For a subset of 14 non‐heterogeneous studies, the difference is smaller and non‐significant (d = 0.09, t = 0.72, p = 0.49). The results from the methods correlate well (r = 0.66 for all 22 studies, r = 0.95 for 14 non‐heterogeneous studies). Thus, the presence of heterogeneity influences our conclusion. We discuss the statistical and scientific implications of these findings.

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.4780080202

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Berlin, J. A., Laird, N. M., Sacks, H. S., & Chalmers, T. C.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1989-02
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
141-151
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.4780080202
OpenAlex
W1978463699
Cited by
420
References
4
FWCI
25.85
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.