[R-meta] Fwd: Question on Umbrella review and other types

[Im]

Hello Dr Gerta!
Thanks for your valuable suggestion.

Could You please share with me the R codes, package for metaregression, and
a brief method if I need to do this analysis ?

I would be much grateful.
best regards,
Imran

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:43 PM Dr. Gerta Rücker <
gerta.ruecker using uniklinik-freiburg.de> wrote:

> Hi Imran,
>
> I think the publication of new studies justifies an updated review,
> particularly if the existing reviews have inconsistent or inconclusive
> results.
>
> You should, however, avoid to be selective with the studies, let alone
> selective based on the results! This would be publication bias. What you
> can do if you suppose there is a time effect is a metaregression with "year
> published" as a covariate.
>
> Best,
> Gerta
>
>
> UNIVERSITÄTSKLINIKUM FREIBURG
> Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics
>
> Dr. Gerta Rücker
> Guest Scientist
>
> Stefan-Meier-Straße 26 · 79104 Freiburg
> gerta.ruecker using uniklinik-freiburg.de
>
> https://www.uniklinik-freiburg.de/imbi-en/employees.html?imbiuser=ruecker
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Im via R-sig-meta-analysis <r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org>
> Gesendet: Montag, 22. April 2024 20:46
> An: R Special Interest Group for Meta-Analysis <
> r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org>
> Cc: Im <aligners79 using gmail.com>
> Betreff: Re: [R-meta] Fwd: Question on Umbrella review and other types
>
> Dear All!
> Many thanks indeed for your much valuable replies.
>
> My research is based on "Prognosis in relation to age in a carcinoma".
> The study results are "young age patients have better prognosis", "old age
> have worst prognosis", "age has not affect on prognostication" etc....
> Is it possible to be selective in the studies in terms of time of studies
> published etc., so that there can be some change in the analysis
> than previous ones ?
>
> With such a trivial number (only two) of previous SRMA, it seems better to
> conduct a new SRMA instead. But I am bit concerned whether it is Ok
> to conduct a new SRMA when the previously SRMA have been published with a
> gap of just couple of years (2020 and 2021)?
>
> So, if there is no problem in conducting a new SRMA, then I would be add
> the studies and proceed with the routine "meta" package in R studios for
> forest plots and funnel plots ?
>
> best regards,
> Imran
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 6:35 PM Dr. Gerta Rücker via R-sig-meta-analysis <
> r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes,I have noted that the word "umbrella" has experienced a change of
> > meaning over the last years. In former times (that is, before network
> > meta-analysis became popular) it meant to conduct a number of pairwise
> > meta-analyses for different treatments for the same condition in the same
> > review. Since this is now better done using network meta-analysis, they
> now
> > use the term for something different, namely overview of overviews, and
> > this is what the original poster meant.
> >
> > As I understand, in the described situation, a re-analysis is planned,
> > thus I am not sure whether a special R package is needed.
> >
> > Best,
> > Gerta
> >
> > UNIVERSITÄTSKLINIKUM FREIBURG
> > Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics
> >
> > Dr. Gerta Rücker
> > Guest Scientist
> >
> > Stefan-Meier-Straße 26 · 79104 Freiburg
> > gerta.ruecker using uniklinik-freiburg.de
> >
> >
> https://www.uniklinik-freiburg.de/imbi-en/employees.html?imbiuser=ruecker
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Michael Dewey <lists using dewey.myzen.co.uk>
> > Gesendet: Montag, 22. April 2024 17:23
> > An: R Special Interest Group for Meta-Analysis <
> > r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org>
> > Cc: Dr. Gerta Rücker <gerta.ruecker using uniklinik-freiburg.de>
> > Betreff: Re: [R-meta] Fwd: Question on Umbrella review and other types
> >
> > There is a package https://cran.r-project.org/package=metaumbrella on
> > CRAN which performs umbrella reviews. Whether what they mean by umbrella
> > is what you mean is open to question.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On 22/04/2024 15:44, Dr. Gerta Rücker via R-sig-meta-analysis wrote:
> > > Hi (whoever you are),
> > >
> > > If you want to repeat the old meta-analysis anyway, assuming that all
> > studies adhere to some common well-defined inclusion criteria,  then why
> > not conducting a meta-analysis including the union of all studies
> included
> > in the two older reviews and the new studies? This would simply be an
> > updated review, not necessarily an umbrella review.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Gerta
> > >
> > >
> > > UNIVERSITÄTSKLINIKUM FREIBURG
> > > Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics
> > >
> > > Dr. Gerta Rücker
> > > Guest Scientist
> > >
> > > Stefan-Meier-Straße 26 · 79104 Freiburg
> > > gerta.ruecker using uniklinik-freiburg.de
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.uniklinik-freiburg.de/imbi-en/employees.html?imbiuser=ruecker
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Im via R-sig-meta-analysis <r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org>
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 22. April 2024 15:47
> > > An: r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
> > > Cc: Im <aligners79 using gmail.com>
> > > Betreff: [R-meta] Fwd: Question on Umbrella review and other types
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > From: Im <aligners79 using gmail.com>
> > > Date: Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:56 PM
> > > Subject: Question on Umbrella review and other types
> > > To: <r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello!
> > >   I am planning to do an Umbrella review.
> > >
> > > The number of systematic/meta analysis are two. Rest of the studies are
> > 3-4
> > > new studies published after or almost at same time of these two
> reviews.
> > >
> > > My question is can I conduct the Umbrella review ? If not then is there
> > any
> > > other type of review that could be performed ?  I want to include the
> > > previous systematic/meta reviews. I also plan to repeat already
> performed
> > > meta-analysis. Can I add the meta analysis studies HRs and new studies
> to
> > > make another meta-analysis ?
> > >
> > > Please guide me which review could be the best in this situation.
> > > best regards
> > >
> > >       [[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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>         [[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
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]