ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al. (2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under more general settings where the first and third quartiles are also available for the trials. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate that the proposed methods greatly improve the existing methods and enrich the literature. We conclude our work with a summary table that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations.
The era of big data is coming, and evidence-based medicine is attracting increasing attention to improve decision making in medical practice via integrating evidence from well designed and conducted clinical research. Meta-analysis is a statistical t
When reporting the results of clinical studies, some researchers may choose the five-number summary (including the sample median, the first and third quartiles, and the minimum and maximum values) rather than the sample mean and standard deviation, p
In some clinical studies, researchers may report the five number summary (including the sample median, the first and third quartiles, and the minimum and maximum values) rather than the sample mean and standard deviation. To conduct meta-analysis for
For clinical studies with continuous outcomes, when the data are potentially skewed, researchers may choose to report the whole or part of the five-number summary (the sample median, the first and third quartiles, and the minimum and maximum values),
Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (SMARTs) are considered the gold standard for estimation and evaluation of treatment regimes. SMARTs are typically sized to ensure sufficient power for a simple comparison, e.g., the comparison of two