when we conducted a meta-analysis, it is often an annoying thing to deal with the data of discrete exposure and multiple outcomes. Conventional "high VS low" approach abandoned the information of middle category, and led to the loss of statistical power. In this paper, we introduced a method and software to combine the groups of discrete exposure and multiple outcomes in the meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Firstly, we introduced the transforming and combination theory and method, and then, we conducted the combination using EXCEL macro software. The result was consistent with the results of the original data in the combination of discrete exposure and multiple outcome data. Therefore, in the case of the original research data cannot be acquired, EXCEL macro software can be a good solution.
The SAS is considered as internationally-known standard software in the field of data processing and statistics, which is also excellent in conducting meta-analysis; however, it require users to have higher technical expertise due to its complex and difficult program coding. Assessing statistical power calculation of significance tests is one of important steps in meta-analysis. Guy Cafri et al., developed a macro (%metapower) for well implement this calculation in SAS. This macro is specifically designed to implement the statistical power calculation of overall results of meta-analysis, heterogenity, and subgroup analysis, which is easy to operate. This article introduces%metapower based on examples.
In evidence-based practice and decision, dose-response meta-analysis has been concerned by many scholars. It can provide unique dose-response relationship between exposure and disease, with a high grade of evidence among observational-study based meta-analysis. Thus, it is important to clearly understand this type of meta-analysis on software implementations. Currently, there are different software for dose-response meta-analysis with various characteristics. In this paper, we will focus on how to conduct dose-response meta-analysis by Stata, R and SAS software, which including a brief introduction, the process of calculation, the graph drawing, the generalization, and some examples of the processes.
ObjectiveTo develop reporting guideline for dose-response meta-analysis (DMA), so as to help Chinese authors to understand DMA better and to promote the reporting quality of DMA conducted by them. MethodPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFang Data were searched from Jan 1st 2011 to Dec 30th 2015 to collect DMA papers published by Chinese authors. The number of these publications by years, whether and what kind of reporting guideline was used, and whether the DMA method claimed in these publications was correct were analysed. Then we drafted a checklist of items for reporting DMA, and organized a discussion meeting with experts from the fields of DMA, evidence-based medicine, clinical epidemiology, and clinicians to collect suggestions for revising the draft reporting guideline for DMA. ResultsOnly 33.73% of the publications clarified it is a DMA on the title and 48.02% of them reported risk of bias. Almost 38.49% of the publications didn't use any reporting guidelines. Fourteen of them claimed an incorrect use of methodology. We primarily took account for 47 potential items related to DMA based on our literature analysis results and existing reporting guidelines for other types of meta-analyses. After the discussion meeting with 6 experts, we revised the items, and finally the G-Dose checklist with 43 items for reporting DMA was developed. ConclusionThere is a lack of attention on reporting guidelines in Chinese authors and evidence suggests these authors may be at risk of incomplete understanding on reporting guidelines. It is strongly recommended to use reporting guidelines for DMA and other types of meta-analyses in Chinese authors.