[R-meta] Choice of MA

[Jorge Teixeira]

Thanks Michael.

Just to add that:

a) yes, those 3 arms can be combined. Neither a perfect, neither a horrible
decision....

b) Doing a NMA would not be the best choice as the research question is
framed.  If I don't conduct a standard MA, I would just do 3-level
multi-level with "Study \ Obs" to account for that study with 4 arms.

Best wishes.



Michael Dewey <lists using dewey.myzen.co.uk> escreveu no dia domingo, 19/03/2023
à(s) 13:43:

> Dear Jorge
>
> I suspect opinions will differ here so my comments (in-line) shouls be
> taken with a pinch of salt.
>
> Michael
>
> On 19/03/2023 10:20, Jorge Teixeira via R-sig-meta-analysis wrote:
> > Hi all. I am doing a SRMA in which most outcomes have just 4 or 5
> studies.
> > One of them has 4 arms (3 with the intervention of interest; 1 with CON).
> >
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> >
> > 1) Would you combine these 3 groups into one and do a standard MA or
> would
> > you do a multi-level MA? Note: I have access to the database of the study
> > with 4 arms.
>
> Usually I would say do an NMA but with so few studies combining the
> intervention groups might be fine as long as they ae scientifically
> combinable.
>
> >
> > 2) Side question: would you tend to not report funnel plots or Egger’s
> > regression in this case?
> >
>
> I would not draw a funnel plot or do any of the regression tests.
>
> >
> > 3) If I broaden my eligibility criteria and had 2 more studies, would
> your
> > answers differ?
> >
>
> Not more 2 more, no.
>
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > JT
> >
> >       [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list @ R-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
> > To manage your subscription to this mailing list, go to:
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-meta-analysis
> >
>
> --
> Michael
> http://www.dewey.myzen.co.uk/home.html
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]