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
460
Risk: a statistician's viewpoint
graemeleehickey
1
1.2k
Joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal and time-to-event data
graemeleehickey
0
450
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
770
Joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal and time-to-event data
graemeleehickey
0
360
What you need to know about statistics to read a journal article
graemeleehickey
1
460
Checking model assumptions with regression diagnostics
graemeleehickey
1
290
Performing repeated measures analysis
graemeleehickey
0
360
Other Decks in Research
See All in Research
論文紹介:Safety Alignment Should be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep
kazutoshishinoda
0
120
AIスパコン「さくらONE」のLLM学習ベンチマークによる性能評価 / SAKURAONE LLM Training Benchmarking
yuukit
2
850
投資戦略202508
pw
0
570
ロボット学習における大規模検索技術の展開と応用
denkiwakame
1
150
財務諸表監査のための逐次検定
masakat0
0
200
国際論文を出そう!ICRA / IROS / RA-L への論文投稿の心構えとノウハウ / RSJ2025 Luncheon Seminar
koide3
10
6.1k
SREのためのテレメトリー技術の探究 / Telemetry for SRE
yuukit
12
1.9k
論文読み会 SNLP2025 Learning Dynamics of LLM Finetuning. In: ICLR 2025
s_mizuki_nlp
0
340
ウェブ・ソーシャルメディア論文読み会 第31回: The rising entropy of English in the attention economy. (Commun Psychology, 2024)
hkefka385
1
110
地域丸ごとデイサービス「Go トレ」の紹介
smartfukushilab1
0
440
情報技術の社会実装に向けた応用と課題:ニュースメディアの事例から / appmech-jsce 2025
upura
0
260
When Learned Data Structures Meet Computer Vision
matsui_528
1
660
Featured
See All Featured
Distributed Sagas: A Protocol for Coordinating Microservices
caitiem20
333
22k
The Web Performance Landscape in 2024 [PerfNow 2024]
tammyeverts
11
940
Why Our Code Smells
bkeepers
PRO
340
57k
How GitHub (no longer) Works
holman
315
140k
Facilitating Awesome Meetings
lara
57
6.6k
Balancing Empowerment & Direction
lara
5
760
Optimizing for Happiness
mojombo
379
70k
Creating an realtime collaboration tool: Agile Flush - .NET Oxford
marcduiker
34
2.3k
Connecting the Dots Between Site Speed, User Experience & Your Business [WebExpo 2025]
tammyeverts
10
680
Art, The Web, and Tiny UX
lynnandtonic
303
21k
The Pragmatic Product Professional
lauravandoore
36
7k
Testing 201, or: Great Expectations
jmmastey
46
7.8k
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