[R-meta] common reference for categorical variable in MA
||@t@ @end|ng |rom dewey@myzen@co@uk
Fri Mar 24 17:46:32 CET 2023
Do you mean all four just compared Caucasian with African-American but
two did it one way and the other two the other? If that is true you can
just invert the odds ratios by taking reciprocals or for log odds ratios
just change the sign.
If I have misunderstood then perhaps you can clarify?
On 24/03/2023 15:23, Pier-Alexandre Tardif via R-sig-meta-analysis wrote:
> We are conducting a meta-analysis to assess the potential relationship between a dichotomous outcome (access to appropriate care) and a variety of exposures based on the PROGRESS-PLUS list. For instance, this list include the variable �race�, which in most studies is a categorical variable with choices such as African-American, Caucasian, Asian, etc. However, in some studies the reference is set as 'caucasian' while in other it is 'african-american'. Say we have 2 studies with caucasian as the reference and 2 as african-american. By default we could perform 2 meta-analyses of 2 studies each. But in order to have more power and be more comprehensive, we'd like to include all 4 by obtaining a common reference. We do not expect to obtain original data to perform an individual-patient data MA, so let's assume that all we'll have access to are the Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and hopefully the proportion of outcome for every category of the exposure variable. How could we achieve this using any of the R package?
> [[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:
More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis