Empirical comparisons of heterogeneity magnitudes of the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio

[...]a Cochrane review could investigate multiple disease outcomes and/or multiple intervention comparisons. [...]the meta-analyses within the review may not be independent due to the correlations between outcomes or intervention comparisons. The CVB is the between-study coefficient of variation use...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Systematic reviews 2022-02, Vol.11 (1), p.26-26, Article 26
Main Authors: Zhao, Yuxi, Slate, Elizabeth H, Xu, Chang, Chu, Haitao, Lin, Lifeng
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Epidemiology
Histograms
Humans
Letter
Libraries
Meta-analysis
Odds Ratio
Risk
Trends
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-91134a09165dd62640000196d0b3b678fc0c5fe459008b0a70d0a235b3fe786c3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-91134a09165dd62640000196d0b3b678fc0c5fe459008b0a70d0a235b3fe786c3
container_end_page 26
container_issue 1
container_start_page 26
container_title Systematic reviews
container_volume 11
creator Zhao, Yuxi
Slate, Elizabeth H
Xu, Chang
Chu, Haitao
Lin, Lifeng
description [...]a Cochrane review could investigate multiple disease outcomes and/or multiple intervention comparisons. [...]the meta-analyses within the review may not be independent due to the correlations between outcomes or intervention comparisons. The CVB is the between-study coefficient of variation used for providing further insight into heterogeneity magnitudes; it is calculated as the ratio of the between-study standard deviation τ over the absolute value of the overall effect size [8]. S1 present the histograms of \(\hat{\tau}\) on a logarithmic scale for the RD, RR, and OR based on the REML and DL estimation methods. Because τ that truly equals 0 may not be exactly estimated as 0, depending on the tolerance of the REML algorithm’s convergence, the histograms in Fig. 1 shows small peaks at very small \(\hat{\tau}\) values.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s13643-022-01895-7
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_701f7e7e5e6949ac9cbeceebb107bb83</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_701f7e7e5e6949ac9cbeceebb107bb83</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2630512496</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-91134a09165dd62640000196d0b3b678fc0c5fe459008b0a70d0a235b3fe786c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdks1u1TAQhSMEolXpC7BAltiwaGBsx068QUJVgUqV2MDa8s8k15ckvthJpb497k2pWryxNeebo7F9quothY-UdvJTplw2vAbGaqCdEnX7ojpl0Mi6AcFfPjmfVOc576EsKYCCfF2dcEEF5Q2cVsPVdAgpODMSF6eDSSHHOZPYkx0umOKAM4bljkxmmMOyejxqyw5JIX8TH_oeE84OL0jC0SzhdlMuiJk9id5nkko1vqle9WbMeP6wn1W_vl79vPxe3_z4dn355aZ2QvKlVrSMZUBRKbyXTDb3Y1MlPVhuZdv1DpzosREKoLNgWvBgGBeW99h20vGz6nrz9dHs9SGFyaQ7HU3Qx0JMgzZpCW5E3QLtW2xRoFSNMk45iw7RWgqttR0vXp83r8NqJ_QO5yWZ8Znpc2UOOz3EW911DXDWFIMPDwYp_lkxL3oK2eE4mhnjmjWTrJMKyk8V9P1_6D6uaS5PVSgOgrJGyUKxjXIp5pywfxyGgr6Phd5ioUss9DEWui1N755e47HlXwj4X32Ds1k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2630512496</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Empirical comparisons of heterogeneity magnitudes of the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Zhao, Yuxi ; Slate, Elizabeth H ; Xu, Chang ; Chu, Haitao ; Lin, Lifeng</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Yuxi ; Slate, Elizabeth H ; Xu, Chang ; Chu, Haitao ; Lin, Lifeng</creatorcontrib><description>[...]a Cochrane review could investigate multiple disease outcomes and/or multiple intervention comparisons. [...]the meta-analyses within the review may not be independent due to the correlations between outcomes or intervention comparisons. The CVB is the between-study coefficient of variation used for providing further insight into heterogeneity magnitudes; it is calculated as the ratio of the between-study standard deviation τ over the absolute value of the overall effect size [8]. S1 present the histograms of \(\hat{\tau}\) on a logarithmic scale for the RD, RR, and OR based on the REML and DL estimation methods. Because τ that truly equals 0 may not be exactly estimated as 0, depending on the tolerance of the REML algorithm’s convergence, the histograms in Fig. 1 shows small peaks at very small \(\hat{\tau}\) values.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2046-4053</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2046-4053</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-01895-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35151340</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central</publisher><subject>Epidemiology ; Histograms ; Humans ; Letter ; Libraries ; Meta-analysis ; Odds Ratio ; Risk ; Trends</subject><ispartof>Systematic reviews, 2022-02, Vol.11 (1), p.26-26, Article 26</ispartof><rights>2022. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-91134a09165dd62640000196d0b3b678fc0c5fe459008b0a70d0a235b3fe786c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-91134a09165dd62640000196d0b3b678fc0c5fe459008b0a70d0a235b3fe786c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3562-9816</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8840324/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2630512496?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35151340$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Yuxi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slate, Elizabeth H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Chang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chu, Haitao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Lifeng</creatorcontrib><title>Empirical comparisons of heterogeneity magnitudes of the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio</title><title>Systematic reviews</title><addtitle>Syst Rev</addtitle><description>[...]a Cochrane review could investigate multiple disease outcomes and/or multiple intervention comparisons. [...]the meta-analyses within the review may not be independent due to the correlations between outcomes or intervention comparisons. The CVB is the between-study coefficient of variation used for providing further insight into heterogeneity magnitudes; it is calculated as the ratio of the between-study standard deviation τ over the absolute value of the overall effect size [8]. S1 present the histograms of \(\hat{\tau}\) on a logarithmic scale for the RD, RR, and OR based on the REML and DL estimation methods. Because τ that truly equals 0 may not be exactly estimated as 0, depending on the tolerance of the REML algorithm’s convergence, the histograms in Fig. 1 shows small peaks at very small \(\hat{\tau}\) values.</description><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Histograms</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Letter</subject><subject>Libraries</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Trends</subject><issn>2046-4053</issn><issn>2046-4053</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdks1u1TAQhSMEolXpC7BAltiwaGBsx068QUJVgUqV2MDa8s8k15ckvthJpb497k2pWryxNeebo7F9quothY-UdvJTplw2vAbGaqCdEnX7ojpl0Mi6AcFfPjmfVOc576EsKYCCfF2dcEEF5Q2cVsPVdAgpODMSF6eDSSHHOZPYkx0umOKAM4bljkxmmMOyejxqyw5JIX8TH_oeE84OL0jC0SzhdlMuiJk9id5nkko1vqle9WbMeP6wn1W_vl79vPxe3_z4dn355aZ2QvKlVrSMZUBRKbyXTDb3Y1MlPVhuZdv1DpzosREKoLNgWvBgGBeW99h20vGz6nrz9dHs9SGFyaQ7HU3Qx0JMgzZpCW5E3QLtW2xRoFSNMk45iw7RWgqttR0vXp83r8NqJ_QO5yWZ8Znpc2UOOz3EW911DXDWFIMPDwYp_lkxL3oK2eE4mhnjmjWTrJMKyk8V9P1_6D6uaS5PVSgOgrJGyUKxjXIp5pywfxyGgr6Phd5ioUss9DEWui1N755e47HlXwj4X32Ds1k</recordid><startdate>20220212</startdate><enddate>20220212</enddate><creator>Zhao, Yuxi</creator><creator>Slate, Elizabeth H</creator><creator>Xu, Chang</creator><creator>Chu, Haitao</creator><creator>Lin, Lifeng</creator><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3562-9816</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220212</creationdate><title>Empirical comparisons of heterogeneity magnitudes of the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio</title><author>Zhao, Yuxi ; Slate, Elizabeth H ; Xu, Chang ; Chu, Haitao ; Lin, Lifeng</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-91134a09165dd62640000196d0b3b678fc0c5fe459008b0a70d0a235b3fe786c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Histograms</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Letter</topic><topic>Libraries</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Trends</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Yuxi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slate, Elizabeth H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Chang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chu, Haitao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Lifeng</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Systematic reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhao, Yuxi</au><au>Slate, Elizabeth H</au><au>Xu, Chang</au><au>Chu, Haitao</au><au>Lin, Lifeng</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Empirical comparisons of heterogeneity magnitudes of the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio</atitle><jtitle>Systematic reviews</jtitle><addtitle>Syst Rev</addtitle><date>2022-02-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>26</spage><epage>26</epage><pages>26-26</pages><artnum>26</artnum><issn>2046-4053</issn><eissn>2046-4053</eissn><abstract>[...]a Cochrane review could investigate multiple disease outcomes and/or multiple intervention comparisons. [...]the meta-analyses within the review may not be independent due to the correlations between outcomes or intervention comparisons. The CVB is the between-study coefficient of variation used for providing further insight into heterogeneity magnitudes; it is calculated as the ratio of the between-study standard deviation τ over the absolute value of the overall effect size [8]. S1 present the histograms of \(\hat{\tau}\) on a logarithmic scale for the RD, RR, and OR based on the REML and DL estimation methods. Because τ that truly equals 0 may not be exactly estimated as 0, depending on the tolerance of the REML algorithm’s convergence, the histograms in Fig. 1 shows small peaks at very small \(\hat{\tau}\) values.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central</pub><pmid>35151340</pmid><doi>10.1186/s13643-022-01895-7</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3562-9816</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2046-4053
ispartof Systematic reviews, 2022-02, Vol.11 (1), p.26-26, Article 26
issn 2046-4053
2046-4053
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_701f7e7e5e6949ac9cbeceebb107bb83
source Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central
subjects Epidemiology
Histograms
Humans
Letter
Libraries
Meta-analysis
Odds Ratio
Risk
Trends
title Empirical comparisons of heterogeneity magnitudes of the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T10%3A24%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Empirical%20comparisons%20of%20heterogeneity%20magnitudes%20of%20the%20risk%20difference,%20relative%20risk,%20and%20odds%20ratio&rft.jtitle=Systematic%20reviews&rft.au=Zhao,%20Yuxi&rft.date=2022-02-12&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=26&rft.epage=26&rft.pages=26-26&rft.artnum=26&rft.issn=2046-4053&rft.eissn=2046-4053&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s13643-022-01895-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2630512496%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-91134a09165dd62640000196d0b3b678fc0c5fe459008b0a70d0a235b3fe786c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2630512496&rft_id=info:pmid/35151340&rfr_iscdi=true