Testing the significance of a common risk difference in meta-analysis
✍ Scribed by Julio Sánchez-Meca; Fulgencio Marı́n-Martı́nez
- Publisher
- Elsevier Science
- Year
- 2000
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 112 KB
- Volume
- 33
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0167-9473
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Using the Monte Carlo simulation, we estimated the statistical power and Type I error rates of ÿve procedures for testing the signiÿcance of a common risk di erence in a set of independent 2 × 2 tables. It was found that the unweighted procedure for testing the signiÿcance of a common risk di erence showed Type I error rates systematically larger than the nominal signiÿcance level, and that its power was lower than that of the other procedures. The conditional weighted procedure showed the worst performance, with remarkably anomalous results under many of the conditions. Cochran's, Mantel-Haenszel's, and Yusuf's unconditional weighted procedures showed very similar results, with the best performance in both Type I error values and power values.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
In many applications we obtain test statistics by combining estimates from different experiments or studies. The usual combined estimator of the overall effect in independent studies leads to systematic overestimates of the significance level, see Li, Shi, and Roth (1994). This results in a great nu
## Abstract Genome searches for identifying susceptibility loci for the same complex disease often give inconclusive or inconsistent results. Genome Search Meta‐analysis (GSMA) is an established non‐parametric method to identify genetic regions that rank high on average in terms of linkage statisti