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
410
Risk: a statistician's viewpoint
graemeleehickey
1
730
Joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal and time-to-event data
graemeleehickey
0
400
A comparison of joint models for longitudinal and competing risks data, with application to an epilepsy drug randomized controlled trial
graemeleehickey
0
210
Dynamic survival prediction for multivariate joint models using the R package joineRML
graemeleehickey
0
620
Joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal and time-to-event data
graemeleehickey
0
320
What you need to know about statistics to read a journal article
graemeleehickey
1
380
Checking model assumptions with regression diagnostics
graemeleehickey
1
270
Performing repeated measures analysis
graemeleehickey
0
260
Other Decks in Research
See All in Research
WikipediaやYouTubeにおける論文参照 / joss2024
corgies
1
210
第28回 著者ゼミ:Identification of drug responsible glycogene signature in liver carcinoma from meta-analysis using RNA-seq data
ktatsuya
2
200
Off-Policy Evaluation of Slate Bandit Policies via Optimizing Abstraction(日本語版)
aiueola
0
120
「Goトレ」のご紹介
smartfukushilab1
0
210
マルチモーダル学習ライブラリ Heronと⾃動運転への応⽤
yuyamaguchi
1
980
大規模言語モデル (LLM) の技術と最新動向
ikuyamada
30
15k
Online Nonstationary and Nonlinear Bandits with Recursive Weighted Gaussian Process
monochromegane
0
100
初めての研究発表を成功させよう! スライド作成の基本
ayaco0
10
4.1k
「人間にAIはどのように辿り着けばよいのか?ー 系統的汎化からの第一歩 ー」@第22回 Language and Robotics研究会
maguro27
0
400
[Human-AI Decision Making勉強会] 説明の更新はユーザにどのような影響をもたらすか
okoso
1
310
アジャイルコミュニティが、宗教ポイと云われるのは何故なのか?
fujiihideo
0
260
LayerXにおけるAI・機械学習技術の活用と展望 / layerx-ai-jsai2024
shimacos
2
2.5k
Featured
See All Featured
Sharpening the Axe: The Primacy of Toolmaking
bcantrill
26
1.6k
Java REST API Framework Comparison - PWX 2021
mraible
PRO
20
7.2k
Understanding Cognitive Biases in Performance Measurement
bluesmoon
18
1.2k
The Psychology of Web Performance [Beyond Tellerrand 2023]
tammyeverts
24
1.8k
Teambox: Starting and Learning
jrom
130
8.6k
Let's Do A Bunch of Simple Stuff to Make Websites Faster
chriscoyier
502
140k
For a Future-Friendly Web
brad_frost
173
9.2k
JavaScript: Past, Present, and Future - NDC Porto 2020
reverentgeek
44
4.7k
Creating an realtime collaboration tool: Agile Flush - .NET Oxford
marcduiker
16
1.6k
Dealing with People You Can't Stand - Big Design 2015
cassininazir
360
22k
Infographics Made Easy
chrislema
238
18k
Designing on Purpose - Digital PM Summit 2013
jponch
113
6.6k
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