Journal
THORAX
Volume 57, Issue 5, Pages 393-395Publisher
BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thorax.57.5.393
Keywords
-
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background: There is no standardised protocol for the measurement of bronchial responsiveness. Results from different studies are difficult to compare and combine. Methods: Analyses are divided between those of a continuous outcome, which can be directly standardised as effect size, and those based on a binary outcome. A published method is used to convert an adds ratio to equivalent effect size. Results: The use of effect size allows comparison between studies using a continuous outcome but different protocols provided the relevant standard deviation is reported. Effect size from a continuous outcome and that derived from an odds ratio from an equivalent analysis gave similar results. Conclusions: Systematic reviews which include both continuous effect estimates and odds ratios can include both in one meta-analysis, provided relevant standard deviations are published for the former. Authors are encouraged to report these in all fields in which measurement protocols vary.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available