[R-meta] Mean and SD or unstandardized regression coefficients?
||@t@ @end|ng |rom dewey@myzen@co@uk
Mon Nov 22 12:07:09 CET 2021
I suspect there may be different opinions here but it seems to me that
the advantage of the regression coefficients is that they provide a
better estimate of the effect but their disadvantage is that if primary
studies adjusted for different variables they are not estimating the
same thing. So depending on what they adjusted for I might choose either
of them under different circumstances.
On 21/11/2021 16:21, Stefanou Revesz wrote:
> Dear Meta-Analysis Experts,
> My sample of longitudinal studies both provide the raw descriptive
> statistics (mean, sd) for groups at different time points as well as
> the unstandardized regression coefficients for group*time interactions
> often adjusted for various confounding variables which may not be the
> same across the studies.
> To meta-analyze these studies, is it better to meta-analyze the
> adjusted unstandardized regression coefficients for group*time
> interactions or the raw (i.e., unadjusted) descriptive statistics
> (mean, sd) for groups at different time points?
> R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list
> R-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis