Upgrade to Pro
— share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …
Speaker Deck
Features
Speaker Deck
PRO
Sign in
Sign up for free
Search
Search
Making forest and funnel plots
Search
Graeme Hickey
October 03, 2016
Research
0
150
Making forest and funnel plots
Presented at the 30th Annual EACTS Meeting, Barcelona, Spain (1-5 October 2016)
Graeme Hickey
October 03, 2016
Tweet
Share
More Decks by Graeme Hickey
See All by Graeme Hickey
Joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event data: recent extensions
graemeleehickey
0
470
Risk: a statistician's viewpoint
graemeleehickey
1
1.4k
Joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal and time-to-event data
graemeleehickey
0
470
A comparison of joint models for longitudinal and competing risks data, with application to an epilepsy drug randomized controlled trial
graemeleehickey
0
230
Dynamic survival prediction for multivariate joint models using the R package joineRML
graemeleehickey
0
800
Joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal and time-to-event data
graemeleehickey
0
370
What you need to know about statistics to read a journal article
graemeleehickey
1
470
Checking model assumptions with regression diagnostics
graemeleehickey
1
300
Performing repeated measures analysis
graemeleehickey
0
370
Other Decks in Research
See All in Research
視覚から身体性を持つAIへ: 巧緻な動作の3次元理解
tkhkaeio
1
220
SREはサイバネティクスの夢をみるか? / Do SREs Dream of Cybernetics?
yuukit
3
440
世界モデルにおける分布外データ対応の方法論
koukyo1994
7
2k
ローテーション別のサイドアウト戦略 ~なぜあのローテは回らないのか?~
vball_panda
0
300
2026年3月1日(日)福島「除染土」の公共利用をかんがえる
atsukomasano2026
0
460
競合や要望に流されない─B2B SaaSでミニマム要件を決めるリアルな取り組み / Don't be swayed by competitors or requests - A real effort to determine minimum requirements for B2B SaaS
kaminashi
0
1.1k
IEEE AIxVR 2026 Keynote Talk: "Beyond Visibility: Understanding Scenes and Humans under Challenging Conditions with Diverse Sensing"
miso2024
0
130
Dwangoでの漫画データ活用〜漫画理解と動画作成〜@コミック工学シンポジウム2025
kzmssk
0
180
ドメイン知識がない領域での自然言語処理の始め方
hargon24
1
270
その推薦システムの評価指標、ユーザーの感覚とズレてるかも
kuri8ive
1
350
存立危機事態の再検討
jimboken
0
260
LLM-jp-3 and beyond: Training Large Language Models
odashi
1
790
Featured
See All Featured
A brief & incomplete history of UX Design for the World Wide Web: 1989–2019
jct
1
320
Between Models and Reality
mayunak
2
240
The AI Revolution Will Not Be Monopolized: How open-source beats economies of scale, even for LLMs
inesmontani
PRO
3
3.2k
Automating Front-end Workflow
addyosmani
1370
200k
Helping Users Find Their Own Way: Creating Modern Search Experiences
danielanewman
31
3.1k
The Pragmatic Product Professional
lauravandoore
37
7.2k
First, design no harm
axbom
PRO
2
1.1k
Building AI with AI
inesmontani
PRO
1
810
Music & Morning Musume
bryan
47
7.1k
Being A Developer After 40
akosma
91
590k
Documentation Writing (for coders)
carmenintech
77
5.3k
Google's AI Overviews - The New Search
badams
0
940
Transcript
Meta-analysis from start to finish Graeme L. Hickey* Department of
Biostatistics, University of Liverpool * No conflicts of interest
None
Early all-cause mortality Five randomized trials
TAVI SAVR Trial Year of publication Events, n Total, n
Events, n Total, n NOTION 2015 3 139 5 135 PARTNER 2011 12 348 22 351 PARTNER 2A 2016 39 1011 41 1021 STACCATO 2012 2 34 0 36 US CoreValve 2014 13 390 16 357 Outcome: early all-cause mortality
Jones et al (39) Kobrin et al (40) Latib et
al (12) Minutello et al (41) Muneretto et al (42) Onorati et al (43) Osnabrugge et al (13) Papadopoulos et al (44) Piazza et al (14) Santarpino et al (45) Schymik et al (15) Stöhr et al (46) Tamburino et al (16) Thakkar et al (47) Thongprayoon et al (48) Thourani et al (17) Walther et al (49) Wendt et al (50) Zweng et al (51) Random-effects model Heterogeneity: l2 = 39.3%; tau-squared = 0.1507; P = 0.017 Random-effects model Heterogeneity: l2 = 37%; tau-squared = 0.1253; P = 0.0172 Test for overall effect: P = 0.9041 Test for subgroup differences: Q = 2.2; P = 0.1415 0 20 2 20 20 1 2 3 33 3 3 21 20 2 3 12 10 9 2 287 356 1.37 (0.68–2.77) 1.00 (0.14–7.23) 1.34 (0.79–2.30) 2.23 (1.16–4.27) 3.11 (0.12–79.64) 0.65 (0.10–4.10) 0.46 (0.11–1.98) 1.35 (0.79–2.31) 0.59 (0.14–2.53) 0.32 (0.09–1.21) 1.70 (0.82–3.51) 0.83 (0.45–1.51) 1.00 (0.13–7.60) 1.51 (0.25–9.12) 0.27 (0.14–0.52) 0.63 (0.27–1.48) 2.72 (0.69–10.63) 1.00 (0.13–7.43) 1.08 (0.84–1.38) 1.01 (0.81–1.26) 0.0 4.8 1.1 6.1 5.2 0.4 1.2 1.8 6.1 1.8 2.1 4.6 5.5 1.0 1.3 5.1 3.9 2.0 1.0 81.7 100 0 15 2 45 19 0 3 6 25 5 9 13 24 2 2 38 15 3 2 309 393 20 194 111 595 204 28 42 40 405 102 216 175 650 30 195 1077 100 62 44 5657 7579 20 194 111 1785 408 28 42 40 405 102 216 175 650 30 195 944 100 51 44 6907 8807 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Favors TAVI Favors SAVR Knapp–Hartung random-effects OR and 95% CI for 30-day all-cause mortality stratified by study design. NOTION = Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention; OR = odds ratio; PARTNER = Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves; SAVR = surgical aortic valve replacement; STACCATO = A Prospective, Randomised Trial of Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Operable Elderly Patients With Aortic Stenosis; TAVI = transcatheter aortic valve implantation. * Percentages do not sum to 18.3% and 81.7% for randomized and matched studies, respectively, because of rounding. www.annals.org Annals of Internal Medicine • Vol. 165 No. 5 • 6 September 2016 337 Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ by a University of Liverpool User on 09/21/2016 Figure 1. Forest plot for early all-cause mortality in the overall population. Study (Reference) Randomized studies NOTION (9, 10) PARTNER (3–5) PARTNER 2A (11) STACCATO (26) U.S. CoreValve (6–8) Random-effects model Heterogeneity: l2 = 0%; tau-squared = 0; P = 0.4571 Matched studies Ailawadi et al (27) Appel et al (28) Biancari et al (29) Conradi et al (30) D'Onofrio et al (31) Fusari et al (33) Guarracino et al (34) Hannan et al (35) Higgins et al (36) Holzhey et al (37) Johansson et al (38) Jones et al (39) Kobrin et al (40) Latib et al (12) Minutello et al (41) Muneretto et al (42) Onorati et al (43) Events, n 3 12 39 2 13 69 34 3 10 6 2 0 3 19 6 14 4 0 20 2 20 20 1 OR (95% CI) 0.57 (0.13–2.45) 0.53 (0.26–1.10) 0.96 (0.61–1.50) 5.62 (0.26–121.32) 0.73 (0.35–1.55) 0.80 (0.51–1.25) 1.61 (0.92–2.81) 1.54 (0.24–9.66) 5.30 (1.14–24.63) 0.85 (0.27–2.63) 5.27 (0.24–113.60) 0.19 (0.01–4.06) 3.22 (0.32–32.89) 1.00 (0.52–1.92) 1.57 (0.41–6.00) 0.76 (0.36–1.58) 1.00 (0.23–4.31) 1.37 (0.68–2.77) 1.00 (0.14–7.23) 1.34 (0.79–2.30) 2.23 (1.16–4.27) 3.11 (0.12–79.64) Weight (Random), %* 1.8 4.7 6.9 0.5 4.5 18.3 5.9 1.2 1.6 2.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 5.2 2.1 4.6 1.8 0.0 4.8 1.1 6.1 5.2 0.4 Events, n 5 22 41 0 16 84 22 2 2 7 0 2 1 19 4 18 4 0 15 2 45 19 0 Total, n 139 348 1011 34 390 1922 340 45 144 82 38 30 30 405 46 167 40 20 194 111 595 204 28 Total, n 135 351 1021 36 357 1900 340 45 144 82 38 30 30 405 46 167 40 20 194 111 1785 408 28 TAVI SAVR Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of TAVI Versus SAVR REVIEW NB. 31 observational studies have been deleted from the reported forest plot Heterogeneity statistics Labelled table of raw data Effect sizes & confidence intervals Weights Pooled estimate Direction labels Nicely formatted axes Forest plot with null line
Systematic review Data extraction Software 51 packages available for meta-analysis
71 packages available for meta-analysis RevMan $$$
+ other software packages & online web calculators
* Only for preparation of Cochrane Reviews or for purely
academic use.
None
None
None
None
1 2 3 5 4 > Finish 6
None
None
None
None
None
None