[R-meta] Mismatch between output from sub-group analysis and forest plot

Guido Schwarzer @c @end|ng |rom |mb|@un|-|re|burg@de
Fri Feb 14 14:13:37 CET 2020


I can only find a very subtle difference in the results of the 
Freeman-Tukey method between *meta* and *metafor*. While *meta* uses 
subgroup-specific harmonic means to back-transform results, *metafor* 
uses the harmonic mean of all studies for both subgroups. Differences 
are only visible in the third digit for prevalence estimates and 
confidence intervals.

Another point to mention is that differences in results of random 
effects subgroup analyses (i) allowing for different estimates of the 
between-study variance tau2 and (ii) assuming a common value of tau2 
have to be expected. It should be clear that subgroup analyses assuming 
a common value for tau2 of 0.0218 produce different results than two 
separate subgroup analyses using values of 0.0109 and 0.0269, respectively.

Best wishes, Guido

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20200214/450ff38c/attachment-0001.html>

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: metaprop04.R
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20200214/450ff38c/attachment-0001.ksh>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: prev_cow.csv
Type: text/csv
Size: 1920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20200214/450ff38c/attachment-0001.csv>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: metaprop04.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 11739 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20200214/450ff38c/attachment-0001.pdf>

More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list