流行病学研究的荟萃分析方法。

T R Einarson, J S Leeder, G Koren
{"title":"流行病学研究的荟萃分析方法。","authors":"T R Einarson,&nbsp;J S Leeder,&nbsp;G Koren","doi":"10.1177/106002808802201021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article presents a stepwise approach for conducting a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies based on proposed guidelines. This systematic method is recommended for practitioners evaluating epidemiological studies in the literature to arrive at an overall quantitative estimate of the impact of a treatment. Bendectin is used as an illustrative example. Meta-analysts should establish a priori the purpose of the analysis and a complete protocol. This protocol should be adhered to, and all steps performed should be recorded in detail. To aid in developing such a protocol, we present methods the researcher can use to perform each of 22 steps in six major areas. The illustrative meta-analysis confirmed previous traditional narrative literature reviews that Bendectin is not related to teratogenic outcomes in humans. The overall summary odds ratio was 1.01 (chi 2 = 0.05, p = 0.815) with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.66-1.55. When the studies were separated according to study type, the summary odds ratio for cohort studies was 0.95 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.62-1.45. For case-control studies, the summary odds ratio was 1.27 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.83-1.94. The corresponding chi-square values were not statistically significant at the p = 0.05 level.</p>","PeriodicalId":77709,"journal":{"name":"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy","volume":"22 10","pages":"813-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/106002808802201021","citationCount":"115","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A method for meta-analysis of epidemiological studies.\",\"authors\":\"T R Einarson,&nbsp;J S Leeder,&nbsp;G Koren\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/106002808802201021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article presents a stepwise approach for conducting a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies based on proposed guidelines. This systematic method is recommended for practitioners evaluating epidemiological studies in the literature to arrive at an overall quantitative estimate of the impact of a treatment. Bendectin is used as an illustrative example. Meta-analysts should establish a priori the purpose of the analysis and a complete protocol. This protocol should be adhered to, and all steps performed should be recorded in detail. To aid in developing such a protocol, we present methods the researcher can use to perform each of 22 steps in six major areas. The illustrative meta-analysis confirmed previous traditional narrative literature reviews that Bendectin is not related to teratogenic outcomes in humans. The overall summary odds ratio was 1.01 (chi 2 = 0.05, p = 0.815) with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.66-1.55. When the studies were separated according to study type, the summary odds ratio for cohort studies was 0.95 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.62-1.45. For case-control studies, the summary odds ratio was 1.27 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.83-1.94. The corresponding chi-square values were not statistically significant at the p = 0.05 level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"22 10\",\"pages\":\"813-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1988-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/106002808802201021\",\"citationCount\":\"115\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/106002808802201021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106002808802201021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 115

摘要

本文提出了一种基于建议的指导方针进行流行病学研究荟萃分析的逐步方法。这种系统的方法被推荐给从业人员评估文献中的流行病学研究,以达到对治疗影响的总体定量估计。以Bendectin为例进行说明。元分析应该建立一个先验的分析目的和一个完整的协议。应遵守该规程,并详细记录所执行的所有步骤。为了帮助制定这样的协议,我们提出了研究人员可以在六个主要领域执行22个步骤的方法。说明性荟萃分析证实了先前的传统叙事文献综述,即Bendectin与人类致畸结局无关。总体总体优势比为1.01 (chi 2 = 0.05, p = 0.815), 95%置信区间为0.66-1.55。当研究按研究类型分开时,队列研究的总优势比为0.95,95%可信区间为0.62-1.45。对于病例对照研究,总优势比为1.27,95%置信区间为0.83-1.94。相应的卡方值在p = 0.05水平上无统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A method for meta-analysis of epidemiological studies.

This article presents a stepwise approach for conducting a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies based on proposed guidelines. This systematic method is recommended for practitioners evaluating epidemiological studies in the literature to arrive at an overall quantitative estimate of the impact of a treatment. Bendectin is used as an illustrative example. Meta-analysts should establish a priori the purpose of the analysis and a complete protocol. This protocol should be adhered to, and all steps performed should be recorded in detail. To aid in developing such a protocol, we present methods the researcher can use to perform each of 22 steps in six major areas. The illustrative meta-analysis confirmed previous traditional narrative literature reviews that Bendectin is not related to teratogenic outcomes in humans. The overall summary odds ratio was 1.01 (chi 2 = 0.05, p = 0.815) with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.66-1.55. When the studies were separated according to study type, the summary odds ratio for cohort studies was 0.95 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.62-1.45. For case-control studies, the summary odds ratio was 1.27 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.83-1.94. The corresponding chi-square values were not statistically significant at the p = 0.05 level.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信