2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Imputing variance estimates do not alter the conclusions of a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes: a case study of changes in renal function after living kidney donation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This did not change our overall conclusion as the pooled estimates and confidence intervals were not significantly changed in terms of magnitude or directionality (data not shown). Although a certain degree of uncertainty exists regarding the accuracy of the results derived from this approach, there is a growing body of the literature indicating the validity of results from meta-analyses utilizing various imputation methods [29, 30]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This did not change our overall conclusion as the pooled estimates and confidence intervals were not significantly changed in terms of magnitude or directionality (data not shown). Although a certain degree of uncertainty exists regarding the accuracy of the results derived from this approach, there is a growing body of the literature indicating the validity of results from meta-analyses utilizing various imputation methods [29, 30]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One trial reported SD c s for its drug and placebo groups that were less than 25% the size of the other trials; because preliminary analyses also revealed that this trial was an outlier, these two standard deviations were treated as missing and imputed. In total, SD c s were known for 28 groups, could be calculated from other inferential statistics in nine comparisons (18 groups), and were imputed in 12 comparisons (24 groups) (47.38%) [13,14]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9 Missing standard deviations for pretreatment and posttreatment mean values were imputed by using the arithmetic mean of available standard deviations. 10 Missing standard deviations for change scores were calculated using pre-intervention and post-intervention means and standard deviations, with a correlation coefficient of 0.5. 11 Due to clinical differences between RCTs (ie medication types, inclusion criteria) we pooled WMDs using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%