[R-meta] Meta-Analisys whit events numbers, RR, OR and HR. It's possibe?

[Martin Lobo]

Dear Gerta and Guide.
You are simply two geniuses.
Like you, it didn't sound very logical to me to mix these effects, and the Cochrane manual confused me.
Gerta does not call my attention the error you found in the ORs, since not having the studies at hand I invented them.

thank you very much to both

Regard





Lorenzo Mart�n Lobo MTSAC, FACC, FESC
Especialista Jerarquizado en Cardiolog�a
Jefe de Dpto Enf. Cardiovasculares y Cardiometabolismo Hospital Militar Campo de Mayo.
Jefe de Cardiolog�a Hospital Militar Campo de Mayo
Ex Jefe de Unidad Coronaria Hospital Militar Campo de Mayo
Miembro Titular de la Sociedad Argentina de Cardiolog�a
Fellow American College of Cardiology
Fellow European Society of Cardiology
Ex Miembro del Area de Investigaci�n de la SAC
Ex Director del Consejo de Aterosclerosis y Trombosis de la SAC
Miembro Asesor del Consejo de Aterosclerosis y Trombosis de la SAC
Ex Director del Consejo de Epidemiolog�a y Prevenci�n Cardiovascular de la SAC
Miembro Asesor del Consejo de Epidemiolog�a y Prevenci�n Cardiovascular de la SAC
Experto en Lipidos de la Sociedad Argentina de Lipidos.
Miembro de la Sociedad Argentina de Lipidos.
Instructor de ACLS de la American Heart Association



________________________________
From: Dr. Gerta R�cker <ruecker using imbi.uni-freiburg.de>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:13:56 PM
To: Martin Lobo <mlobo4370 using hotmail.com>; r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org <r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org>
Cc: Guido Schwarzer <sc using imbi.uni-freiburg.de>; Michael Dewey <lists using dewey.myzen.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [R-meta] Meta-Analisys whit events numbers, RR, OR and HR. It's possibe?

Dear Martin,

To add to Guido's answer, it seems that there is something wrong with
your odds ratios. You see this when you use Guido's code: For the last
two studies, the confidence intervals differ markedly from the entered
values:

Entered:

>> OR (0,47 , 0.77, 072)
>> IC95% L (0.24, 0.52, 0.55)
>> IC95% U (0.91, 0.81, 0.89)

Result:

[...]
study 5   0.47 [0.24; 0.92]   OR
study 6   0.77 [0.62; 0.96]   OR
study 7   0.72 [0.57; 0.92]   OR

You also see this when looking whether the point estimate is the
geometric mean (square root of the product) of upper and lower limit of
the 95% CI - this is not the case for these studies. Please check.

Moreover, as I wrote before, the main problem is not a technical one
(how to use R to mix these data), but a methodological issue. HR and OR
don't describe the same thing. The heading is "Hazard ratio", because
this is what you have written. Nevertheless, the odds ratios remain odds
ratios and have a different interpretation. I don't know how to
interpret the final result.

Both Guido and I recommended the Tierney paper to you, so please have a
look into it.

Best,

Gerta

> Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical
> methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into
> meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]