Cited by 226Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Combining Risk Estimates from Observational Studies with Different Exposure Cutpoints: A Meta-analysis on Body Mass Index and Diabetes Type 2

Open access
Hartemink, Nienke, Boshuizen, Hendriek C., Nagelkerke, Nico J. D., Jacobs, Monique A. M., van Houwelingen, Hans C.·2006·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Studies on a dose-response relation often report separate relative risks for several risk classes compared with a referent class. When performing a meta-analysis of such studies, one has to convert these relative risks into an overall relative risk for a continuous effect. Apart from taking the dependence between separate relative risks into account, this implies assigning an exposure level to each risk factor class and allowing for the nonlinearity of the dose-response relation. The authors describe a relatively simple method solving these problems. As an illustration, they applied this method in a meta-analysis of the association between body mass index and diabetes type 2, restricted to results of follow-up studies (n=31). Results were compared with a more ad hoc method of assigning exposure levels and with a method in which the nonlinearity of the dose-response method was not taken into account. Differences with the ad hoc method were larger in studies with fewer categories. Not incorporating the nonlinearity of the dose response leads to an overestimation of the pooled relative risk, but this bias is relatively small.

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 · 10.1093/aje/kwj141

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other topics included meta-regression, while few articles focused on more specific statistical issues, such as dose-response analysis, credibility ceilings, bias adjustment, hierarchical models, or regression bias.

    “Other topics included meta-regression, while few articles focused on more specific statistical issues, such as dose-response analysis [81, 109, 111, 113], credibility ceilings [110], bias adjustment [112], hierarchical models [117], or regression bias [108].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartemink, N., Boshuizen, H. C., Nagelkerke, N. J. D., Jacobs, M. A. M., & van Houwelingen, H. C.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NL)
  • United Arab Emirates University (AE)
Corresponding author
Hartemink, Nienke
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2006-04-12
Volume
163
Issue
11
Pages
1042-1052
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2066017793
Cited by
226
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rivm Repository (Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
body mass index, type 2 diabetes, dose-response relationship, observational studies
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Risk Factors, Body Mass Index, Risk Assessment

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