Cited by 2,139Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyProbability and Statistical Research

Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data

Open access
Nyaga, Victoria N, Arbyn, Marc, Aerts, Marc·2014·Archives of Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses have become an essential tool in synthesizing evidence on clinical and epidemiological questions derived from a multitude of similar studies assessing the particular issue. Appropriate and accessible statistical software is needed to produce the summary statistic of interest. METHODS: Metaprop is a statistical program implemented to perform meta-analyses of proportions in Stata. It builds further on the existing Stata procedure metan which is typically used to pool effects (risk ratios, odds ratios, differences of risks or means) but which is also used to pool proportions. Metaprop implements procedures which are specific to binomial data and allows computation of exact binomial and score test-based confidence intervals. It provides appropriate methods for dealing with proportions close to or at the margins where the normal approximation procedures often break down, by use of the binomial distribution to model the within-study variability or by allowing Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilize the variances. Metaprop was applied on two published meta-analyses: 1) prevalence of HPV-infection in women with a Pap smear showing ASC-US; 2) cure rate after treatment for cervical precancer using cold coagulation. RESULTS: The first meta-analysis showed a pooled HPV-prevalence of 43% (95% CI: 38%-48%). In the second meta-analysis, the pooled percentage of cured women was 94% (95% CI: 86%-97%). CONCLUSION: By using metaprop, no studies with 0% or 100% proportions were excluded from the meta-analysis. Furthermore, study specific and pooled confidence intervals always were within admissible values, contrary to the original publication, where metan was used.

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 · 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • The Freeman-Tukey arcsine methodology was applied to ensure proportionate weight distribution to studies presenting extreme prevalence.

    “To ensure proportionate weight distribution to studies presenting extreme prevalence (near 0 or 1), the Freeman-Tukey arcsine methodology was applied (Nyaga et al., 2014).”

    From Maternal colonization or infection with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Nyaga et al., 2014

    The Results (Example two; page not provided) use the Freeman–Tukey transformation when some proportions are at or near 1, explaining that studies at 1 would otherwise be excluded and bias the pooled estimate. The Methods describe a weighted pooled estimate after transformation, but do not say the method ensures proportionate weight distribution to studies with extreme prevalence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Nyaga, V. N., Arbyn, M., & Aerts, M.
Affiliations
  • Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique (BE)
  • Hasselt University (BE)
Corresponding author
Arbyn, Marc
Venue
Archives of Public Health
Published
2014-11-10
Volume
72
Issue
1
Pages
39-39
ISSN
  • 0778-7367 (ISSN-L)
  • 2049-3258
OpenAlex
W2133564174
Cited by
2,139
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 88 · 2025: 157 · 2024: 249 · 2023: 272 · 2022: 286 · 2021: 321 · 2020: 296 · 2019: 166 · 2018: 133 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 1
FWCI
15.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Document Server@UHasselt (UHasselt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (282562, 603019, FP7‐HEALTH‐2011)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • FP7 Health (FP7-HEALTH-2011-282562, 603019)
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 › Probability and Statistical Research
Keywords
Stata command, binomial data, HPV prevalence, ASCUS, cold coagulation

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