Cited by 44Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

An Exact Method for Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Follow-Up Studies

Martin, David O., Austin, Harland·2000·Epidemiology

Abstract

In this paper, we describe an exact method for estimating a common relative risk across different epidemiologic study designs. The types of studies allowed by the method include case-control studies, follow-up studies with an internal comparison group, and follow-up studies with an external comparison group. Because the method is exact, sparseness of individual studies is not an issue. Those wishing to perform a meta-analysis of case-control studies and follow-up studies in which both the exposure and outcome are rare will find the method particularly useful. To allow one to perform the computations efficiently, we present a partial polynomial multiplication algorithm. We also describe a public-domain computer program that performs the necessary calculations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001648-200005000-00005

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin, D. O., & Austin, H.
Affiliations
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
2000-05
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
255-260
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985547846
Cited by
44
References
28
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
meta-analysis, exact algorithms, case-control study, follow-up study, rare exposures
MeSH terms
Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Case-Control Studies

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