DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplementary File 6 – Forest and Funnel Plots

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplementary File 6 – Forest and Funnel Plots Supplementary file 6 – Forest and funnel plots Effect of control-COM intervention on control-COM outcomes PEDro % TOTAL study_author SMD (95% CI) Weight 8 Allet 2010 1.06 (0.56, 1.56) 1.83 7 Ansai 2016 0.60 (-0.00, 1.20) 1.67 5 Arai 2007 -0.01 (-0.34, 0.33) 2.06 5 Audette 2006 0.48 (-0.45, 1.40) 1.21 8 Baker 2007 0.10 (-0.54, 0.74) 1.61 4 Binder 2002 0.24 (-0.13, 0.61) 2.01 7 Binder 2004 0.50 (0.04, 0.97) 1.88 4 Brown 2000 0.36 (-0.07, 0.80) 1.92 5 Carter 2002 0.12 (-0.32, 0.56) 1.92 6 Chin A Paw 2006 -0.44 (-0.96, 0.08) 1.79 4 Cho 2014 0.62 (-0.09, 1.33) 1.50 6 Chulvi-Medrano 2009 0.74 (-0.06, 1.54) 1.38 7 Cyarto 2008 0.25 (-0.18, 0.67) 1.93 5 de Bruin 2007 0.99 (0.15, 1.82) 1.33 5 Englund 2005 -0.19 (-0.81, 0.44) 1.64 4 Hackney 2007 0.24 (-0.66, 1.15) 1.23 5 Hauer 2003 0.58 (-0.03, 1.18) 1.66 6 Hirase 2015 0.87 (0.35, 1.39) 1.79 7 Hourigan 2008 0.48 (0.07, 0.88) 1.97 6 Irez 2011 -1.23 (-1.78, -0.67) 1.74 5 Islam 2004 1.33 (0.52, 2.14) 1.36 5 Jessup 2003 1.59 (0.51, 2.66) 1.03 6 Johansson 1991 0.11 (-0.57, 0.80) 1.54 4 Kim 2009 1.65 (1.02, 2.28) 1.62 7 Kronhed 2009 0.46 (-0.05, 0.97) 1.81 8 Kruse 2010 0.20 (-0.24, 0.65) 1.91 4 Lai 2013 1.06 (0.29, 1.83) 1.42 4 Lee 2012 1.88 (1.24, 2.52) 1.61 7 Lee Chang 2013 -0.19 (-0.35, -0.03) 2.25 5 Lee Shin 2013 0.81 (0.26, 1.36) 1.75 5 Li 2005 0.57 (0.32, 0.82) 2.17 4 Li 2008 0.43 (-0.20, 1.06) 1.62 5 Liu-Ambrose 2004 0.15 (-0.33, 0.64) 1.85 7 Liu-Ambrose 2008 -0.08 (-0.64, 0.48) 1.74 4 Lord 1995 -0.60 (-0.93, -0.28) 2.07 4 MacRae 1994 0.06 (-0.45, 0.57) 1.81 6 Mansfield 2010 -0.70 (-1.45, 0.04) 1.46 8 Melzer 2012 1.57 (1.02, 2.12) 1.74 4 Mian 2007 0.67 (-0.02, 1.36) 1.54 6 Nelson 2004 0.34 (-0.13, 0.81) 1.86 5 Park 2008 2.63 (1.86, 3.39) 1.42 4 Pereira 2008 0.63 (0.17, 1.08) 1.89 6 Ramsbottom 2004 0.06 (-0.96, 1.07) 1.10 4 Reinsch 1992 0.63 (-0.07, 1.33) 1.52 7 Rubenstein 2000 -0.08 (-0.61, 0.45) 1.78 7 Schoene 2013 -0.18 (-0.88, 0.51) 1.52 7 Sherrington 2004 -0.17 (-0.65, 0.30) 1.87 7 Shigematsu 2008 0.13 (-0.37, 0.62) 1.83 5 Shimada 2003 0.32 (-0.55, 1.19) 1.28 5 Sihvonen 2004 0.28 (-0.65, 1.22) 1.20 4 Sofianidis 2009 -0.02 (-0.79, 0.75) 1.41 6 Swanenburg 2007 0.54 (-0.36, 1.43) 1.25 5 Toulotte 2012 0.94 (-0.04, 1.92) 1.14 6 Vestergaard 2008 0.28 (-0.32, 0.89) 1.66 8 Vogler 2009 0.50 (0.12, 0.88) 2.00 7 Voukelatos 2007 0.07 (-0.10, 0.24) 2.24 6 Weerdesteyn 2006 0.07 (-0.38, 0.52) 1.91 3 Wolf 1997 0.30 (-0.34, 0.94) 1.61 6 Wolfson 1996 0.73 (0.08, 1.38) 1.59 4 Zhang 2006 1.84 (1.15, 2.52) 1.54 Overall (I-squared = 80.6%, p = 0.000) 0.42 (0.27, 0.56) 100.00 NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -1 0 1 Control Intervention Figure S6.1.1: Forest plot of meta-analysis of control-COM interventions on control-COM outcomes indicating a moderate effect in favour of the intervention (SMD 0.42, CIs 0.27, 0.56) Figure S6.1.2: Funnel plots of publication biases of studies included in the meta-analysis of Control COM interventions. The y-axis represents the standard error of the standardised mean difference (seSMD) and the x-axis represents the standardised mean difference. Each circle represents a study. A reasonable spread of effect sizes around the mean indicates any influence publication bias might have appears to be relatively small. Supplementary file 6 – Forest and funnel plots Effect of mobility intervention on mobility outcomes PEDro % TOTAL study_author SMD (95% CI) Weight 8 Allet 2010 0.50 (0.03, 0.97) 2.58 7 Ansai 2016 -0.16 (-0.75, 0.42) 2.10 5 Arai 2007 0.15 (-0.19, 0.48) 3.26 5 Au-Yeung 2002 -0.07 (-1.00, 0.86) 1.16 8 Baker 2007 0.13 (-0.51, 0.77) 1.91 7 Bravo 1996 0.42 (0.07, 0.78) 3.16 4 Brown 2000 0.42 (-0.01, 0.86) 2.75 5 Carter 2002 -0.07 (-0.51, 0.36) 2.74 7 Chaipinyo 2009 1.62 (0.91, 2.32) 1.69 6 Cheung 2008 0.20 (-0.36, 0.75) 2.21 6 Chulvi-Medrano 2009 0.78 (-0.03, 1.58) 1.44 7 Cyarto 2008 0.05 (-0.38, 0.47) 2.80 8 Fitzgerald 2011 -0.27 (-0.56, 0.02) 3.50 6 Gao 2014 0.76 (0.30, 1.23) 2.61 5 Hartmann 2009 1.23 (0.49, 1.97) 1.60 5 Hauer 2003 1.13 (0.49, 1.77) 1.90 6 Hirase 2015 0.84 (0.32, 1.36) 2.36 7 Hourigan 2008 0.87 (0.46, 1.29) 2.86 6 Huang 2010 0.25 (-0.21, 0.70) 2.66 7 Jorgensen 2012 0.44 (-0.09, 0.97) 2.34 7 Karinkanta 2007 0.21 (-0.25, 0.66) 2.65 8 Kruse 2010 0.06 (-0.38, 0.50) 2.73 4 Lai 2013 1.01 (0.24, 1.77) 1.53 5 Lazowski 1999 0.58 (0.09, 1.08) 2.48 7 Lee Chang 2013 0.07 (-0.09, 0.23) 4.14 5 Lee Shin 2013 1.07 (0.50, 1.64) 2.17 5 Li 2005 0.44 (0.19, 0.69) 3.73 7 Liu-Ambrose 2008 0.58 (0.02, 1.13) 2.21 6 Madureira 2007 -0.24 (-0.75, 0.27) 2.42 6 Mansfield 2010 0.00 (-0.72, 0.72) 1.66 5 Means 2005 0.00 (-0.28, 0.28) 3.57 6 Nelson 2004 0.64 (0.16, 1.12) 2.53 4 Netz 2007 -0.41 (-1.23, 0.41) 1.39 4 Peterson 2004 0.14 (-0.39, 0.67) 2.32 6 Ramsbottom 2004 0.45 (-0.58, 1.48) 1.00 8 Rolland 2007 0.09 (-0.29, 0.46) 3.07 5 Schilling 2009 0.30 (-0.61, 1.20) 1.21 7 Schoene 2013 0.12 (-0.57, 0.82) 1.73 7 Shigematsu 2008 -0.12 (-0.61, 0.38) 2.48 5 Shimada 2003 -0.38 (-1.25, 0.49) 1.27 8 Shumway-Cook 2007 0.25 (0.06, 0.44) 4.01 6 Suzuki 2004 0.09 (-0.50, 0.68) 2.08 Overall (I-squared = 62.7%, p = 0.000) 0.31 (0.20, 0.43) 100.00 NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -1 0 1 Control Intervention Figure S6.2.1: Forest plot of meta-analysis of mobility interventions on mobility outcomes indicating a small effect in favour of the intervention (SMD 0.31, CIs 0.20, 0.43) Figure S6.2.2: Funnel plots of publication biases of studies included in the meta-analysis of mobility interventions. The y-axis represents the standard error of the standardised mean difference (seSMD) and the x-axis represents the standardised mean difference. Each circle represents a study. A reasonable spread of effect sizes around the mean indicates any influence publication bias might have appears to be relatively small. Supplementary file 6 – Forest and funnel plots Effect of multi-dimensional intervention on multi-dimensional outcomes PEDro % TOTAL study_author SMD (95% CI) Weight 9 Allet 2010 0.91 (0.42, 1.40) 3.39 8 Ashburn 2007 0.07 (-0.28, 0.41) 4.24 5 Au-Yeung 2002 -0.45 (-1.39, 0.49) 1.63 5 Beyer 2007 0.76 (0.20, 1.32) 3.02 4 Binder 2002 0.41 (0.03, 0.78) 4.07 7 Binder 2004 0.66 (0.21, 1.11) 3.63 4 Brown 2000 0.40 (-0.04, 0.84) 3.69 7 Cheung 2008 0.98 (0.39, 1.57) 2.88 5 de Bruin 2007 0.58 (-0.22, 1.38) 2.03 5 Englund 2005 0.38 (-0.25, 1.01) 2.70 6 Eyigor 2009 1.05 (0.36, 1.74) 2.43 6 Gao 2014 0.44 (-0.02, 0.89) 3.59 7 Haines 2009 0.25 (-0.38, 0.89) 2.67 5 Hauer 2003 1.16 (0.50, 1.82) 2.57 5 Hinman 2002 -0.03 (-0.53, 0.48) 3.30 8 Kruse 2010 -0.08 (-0.52, 0.36) 3.67 4 Lai 2013 0.90 (0.15, 1.66) 2.19 5 Lazowski 1999 1.19 (0.67, 1.71) 3.24 5 Lee Shin 2013 0.94 (0.38, 1.50) 3.03 5 Li 2005 0.51 (0.26, 0.76) 4.82 5 Lin 2007 0.03 (-0.39, 0.46) 3.75 4 Liu 2007 1.99 (0.96, 3.03) 1.41 8 Logghe 2009 0.12 (-0.15, 0.39) 4.70 6 Madureira 2007 1.13 (0.59, 1.68) 3.09 8 Pang 2005 0.08 (-0.42, 0.57) 3.37 7 Rubenstein 2000 0.27 (-0.26, 0.80) 3.17 5 Shimada 2003 -0.28 (-1.15, 0.59) 1.83 8 Shumway-Cook 2007 0.25 (0.06, 0.44) 5.13 5 Sihvonen 2004 1.15 (0.15, 2.14) 1.51 6 Swanenburg 2007 1.27 (0.30, 2.25) 1.56 5 Toulotte 2012 1.01 (0.02, 2.00) 1.52 4 Westlake 2007 0.31 (-0.35, 0.97) 2.56 8 Wolf 2001 0.38 (-0.08, 0.83) 3.61 Overall (I-squared = 62.3%, p = 0.000) 0.50 (0.36, 0.65) 100.00 NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -1 0 1 Control Intervention Figure S6.3.1: Forest plot of meta-analysis of multidimensional interventions on multidimensional outcomes indicating a moderate effect in favour of the intervention (SMD 0.50, CIs 0.36, 0.65) Figure S6.3.2: Funnel plots of publication biases of studies included in the meta-analysis of multidimensional interventions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Orchard Plot: Cultivating a Forest Plot for Use in Ecology, Evolution
    1BRIEF METHOD NOTE 2The Orchard Plot: Cultivating a Forest Plot for Use in Ecology, 3Evolution and Beyond 4Shinichi Nakagawa1, Malgorzata Lagisz1,5, Rose E. O’Dea1, Joanna Rutkowska2, Yefeng Yang1, 5Daniel W. A. Noble3,5, and Alistair M. Senior4,5. 61 Evolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental 7Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia 82 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland 93 Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, The Australian National 10University, Canberra, ACT, Australia 114 Charles Perkins Centre and School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, 12Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia 135 These authors contributed equally 14* Correspondence: S. Nakagawa & A. M. Senior 15e-mail: [email protected] 16email: [email protected] 17Short title: The Orchard Plot 18 1 19Abstract 20‘Classic’ forest plots show the effect sizes from individual studies and the aggregate effect from a 21meta-analysis. However, in ecology and evolution meta-analyses routinely contain over 100 effect 22sizes, making the classic forest plot of limited use. We surveyed 102 meta-analyses in ecology and 23evolution, finding that only 11% use the classic forest plot. Instead, most used a ‘forest-like plot’, 24showing point estimates (with 95% confidence intervals; CIs) from a series of subgroups or 25categories in a meta-regression. We propose a modification of the forest-like plot, which we name 26the ‘orchard plot’. Orchard plots, in addition to showing overall mean effects and CIs from meta- 27analyses/regressions, also includes 95% prediction intervals (PIs), and the individual effect sizes 28scaled by their precision.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Subgroups and the STAMPEDE Trial
    “Thursday’s child has far to go” -- Interpreting subgroups and the STAMPEDE trial Melissa R Spears MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London Nicholas D James Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham Matthew R Sydes MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL STAMPEDE is a multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trial protocol, recruiting men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer who are commencing long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Opening to recruitment with five research questions in 2005 and adding in a further five questions over the past six years, it has reported survival data on six of these ten RCT questions over the past two years. [1-3] Some of these results have been of practice-changing magnitude, [4, 5] but, in conversation, we have noticed some misinterpretation, both over-interpretation and under-interpretation, of subgroup analyses by the wider clinical community which could impact negatively on practice. We suspect, therefore, that such problems in interpretation may be common. Our intention here is to provide comment on interpretation of subgroup analysis in general using examples from STAMPEDE. Specifically we would like to highlight some possible implications from the misinterpretation of subgroups and how these might be avoided, particularly where these contravene the very design of the research question. In this, we would hope to contribute to the conversation on subgroup analyses. [6-11] For each comparison in STAMPEDE, or indeed virtually any trial, the interest is the effect of the research treatment under investigation on the primary outcome measure across the whole population. Upon reporting the primary outcome measure, the consistency of effect across pre-specified subgroups, including stratification factors at randomisation, is presented; these are planned analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Meta4diag: Bayesian Bivariate Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Studies for Routine Practice
    meta4diag: Bayesian Bivariate Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Studies for Routine Practice J. Guo and A. Riebler Department of Mathematical Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, PO 7491, Norway. July 8, 2016 Abstract This paper introduces the R package meta4diag for implementing Bayesian bivariate meta-analyses of diagnostic test studies. Our package meta4diag is a purpose-built front end of the R package INLA. While INLA offers full Bayesian inference for the large set of latent Gaussian models using integrated nested Laplace approximations, meta4diag extracts the features needed for bivariate meta-analysis and presents them in an intuitive way. It allows the user a straightforward model- specification and offers user-specific prior distributions. Further, the newly proposed penalised complexity prior framework is supported, which builds on prior intuitions about the behaviours of the variance and correlation parameters. Accurate posterior marginal distributions for sensitivity and specificity as well as all hyperparameters, and covariates are directly obtained without Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling. Further, univariate estimates of interest, such as odds ratios, as well as the SROC curve and other common graphics are directly available for interpretation. An in- teractive graphical user interface provides the user with the full functionality of the package without requiring any R programming. The package is available through CRAN https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/meta4diag/ and its usage will be illustrated using three real data examples. arXiv:1512.06220v2 [stat.AP] 7 Jul 2016 1 1 Introduction A meta-analysis summarises the results from multiple studies with the purpose of finding a general trend across the studies.
    [Show full text]
  • 09 May 2021 Aperto
    AperTO - Archivio Istituzionale Open Access dell'Università di Torino How far can we trust forestry estimates from low-density LiDAR acquisitions? The Cutfoot Sioux experimental forest (MN, USA) case study This is the author's manuscript Original Citation: Availability: This version is available http://hdl.handle.net/2318/1730744 since 2020-02-25T11:39:10Z Published version: DOI:10.1080/01431161.2020.1723173 Terms of use: Open Access Anyone can freely access the full text of works made available as "Open Access". Works made available under a Creative Commons license can be used according to the terms and conditions of said license. Use of all other works requires consent of the right holder (author or publisher) if not exempted from copyright protection by the applicable law. (Article begins on next page) 06 October 2021 International Journal of Remote Sensing and Remote Sensing Letters For Peer Review Only How far can We trust Forestry Estimates from Low Density LiDAR Acquisitions? The Cutfoot Sioux Experimental Forest (MN, USA) Case Study Journal: International Journal of Remote Sensing Manuscript ID TRES-PAP-2019-0377.R1 Manuscript Type: IJRS Research Paper Date Submitted by the 04-Oct-2019 Author: Complete List of Authors: Borgogno Mondino, Enrico; Universita degli Studi di Torino Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie Forestali e Alimentari Fissore, Vanina; Universita degli Studi di Torino Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie Forestali e Alimentari Falkowski, Michael; Colorado State University College of Agricultural Sciences Palik, Brian; USDA
    [Show full text]
  • Publication Bias
    CHAPTER 30 Publication Bias Introduction The problem of missing studies Methods for addressing bias Illustrative example The model Getting a sense of the data Is there evidence of any bias? Is the entire effect an artifact of bias? How much of an impact might the bias have? Summary of the findings for the illustrative example Some important caveats Small-study effects Concluding remarks INTRODUCTION While a meta-analysis will yield a mathematically accurate synthesis of the studies included in the analysis, if these studies are a biased sample of all relevant studies, then the mean effect computed by the meta-analysis will reflect this bias. Several lines of evidence show that studies that report relatively high effect sizes are more likely to be published than studies that report lower effect sizes. Since published studies are more likely to find their way into a meta-analysis, any bias in the literature is likely to be reflected in the meta-analysis as well. This issue is generally known as publication bias. The problem of publication bias is not unique to systematic reviews. It affects the researcher who writes a narrative review and even the clinician who is searching a database for primary papers. Nevertheless, it has received more attention with regard to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, possibly because these are pro- moted as being more accurate than other approaches to synthesizing research. In this chapter we first discuss the reasons for publication bias and the evidence that it exists. Then we discuss a series of methods that have been developed to assess Introduction to Meta-Analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2.0
    Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2.0 This manual will continue to be revised to reflect changes in the program. It will also be expanded to include chapters covering conceptual topics. Upgrades to the program and manual will be available on our download site. 1 Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2 Developed by Michael Borenstein Larry Hedges Julian Higgins Hannah Rothstein Advisory group Doug Altman Betsy Becker Jesse Berlin Harris Cooper Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis Kay Dickersin Sue Duval Matthias Egger Kim Goodwin Wayne Greenwood Julian Higgins John Ioannidis Spyros Konstantopoulos Mark Lipsey Michael McDaniel Fred Oswald Terri Pigott Stephen Senn Will Shadish Jonathan Sterne Alex Sutton Steven Tarlow Thomas Trikalinos Jeff Valentine John Vevea Vish Viswesvaran David Wilson This project was funded by the National Institutes of Health 2 Group meetings to develop the program July 2002. Left to right (Seated) Vish Viswesvaran, Will Shadish, Hannah Rothstein, Michael Borenstein, Fred Oswald, Terri Pigott. (Standing) Spyros Konstantopoulos, David Wilson, Alex Sutton, Jonathan Sterne, Harris Cooper, Sue Duval, Jesse Berlin, Larry Hedges, Mike McDaniel, Jack Vevea August, 2003. Left to right (Seated) David Wilson, Betsy Becker, Julian Higgins, Will Shadish, Hannah Rothstein, Michael Borenstein, Mike McDaniel, Steven Tarlow. (Standing) Spyros Konstantopoulos, Larry Hedges, Harris Cooper, John Ioannidis, Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Jack Vevea, Sue Duval, Mark Lipsey, Alex Sutton, Terri Pigott, Fred Oswald, Wayne Greenwood, Thomas Trikalinos. 3 August, 2004 Left to right: Jonathan Sterne, Doug Altman, Alex Sutton, Michael Borenstein, Julian Higgins, Hannah Rothstein 4 Introduction The program installation will create a shortcut labeled Comprehensive Meta Analysis V2 on your desktop and also under “All programs” on the Windows Start menu.
    [Show full text]
  • Package 'Metaviz'
    Package ‘metaviz’ April 9, 2020 Type Package Title Forest Plots, Funnel Plots, and Visual Funnel Plot Inference for Meta-Analysis Version 0.3.1 Description A compilation of functions to create visually appealing and information-rich plots of meta-analytic data using 'ggplot2'. Currently allows to create forest plots, funnel plots, and many of their variants, such as rainforest plots, thick forest plots, additional evidence contour funnel plots, and sunset funnel plots. In addition, functionalities for visual inference with the funnel plot in the context of meta-analysis are provided. License GPL-2 Encoding UTF-8 LazyData true Imports ggplot2 (>= 3.1.0), nullabor (>= 0.3.5), dplyr (>= 0.7.8), RColorBrewer (>= 1.1-2), metafor (>= 1.9-9), gridExtra (>= 2.2.1), ggpubr (>= 0.1.6) Suggests Cairo (>= 1.5-9), knitr, rmarkdown Depends R (>= 3.2.0) RoxygenNote 7.1.0 VignetteBuilder knitr URL https://github.com/Mkossmeier/metaviz BugReports https://github.com/Mkossmeier/metaviz/issues NeedsCompilation no Author Michael Kossmeier [cre, aut], Ulrich S. Tran [aut], Martin Voracek [aut] Maintainer Michael Kossmeier <[email protected]> Repository CRAN Date/Publication 2020-04-09 09:10:08 UTC 1 2 metaviz-package R topics documented: metaviz-package . .2 brainvol . .3 exrehab . .4 funnelinf . .5 homeopath . .8 mozart . .9 viz_forest . 10 viz_funnel . 13 viz_rainforest . 17 viz_sunset . 21 viz_thickforest . 24 Index 28 metaviz-package metaviz: Forest Plots, Funnel Plots, and Visual Funnel Plot Inference for Meta-Analysis Description The package metaviz is a collection of functions to create visually appealing and information- rich plots of meta-analytic data using ggplot2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Understanding Meta-Analysis
    [ clinical commentary ] HEIDI ISRAEL, FNP, PhD1 • RANDY R. RICHTER, PT, PhD2 A Guide to Understanding Meta-Analysis eta-analysis is a popular and frequently used statistical able one to combine data and summarize technique used to combine data from several studies and the findings of several clinical trials that reexamine the effectiveness of treatment interventions. As evaluate the effectiveness or efficacy of a similar treatment approach on similar the number of articles using meta-analysis increases, under- M group of patients. This technique can standing of the benefits and drawbacks of the technique is essential. prove especially useful when there are several similar clinical trials with or with- Well-conducted systematic reviews of high level of evidence, and enhanced clin- out consistent outcomes, or when there randomized controlled trials are regarded ical interpretation of treatment effects, are smaller to medium-sized trials with as representing a high level of evidence.28 interpreting a meta-analysis is an impor- inconclusive results. Practicing in an evidence-based manner tant skill for physical therapists. The pur- By combining the results from 2 or is a recognized goal for the profession.3 pose of this commentary is to expand on more studies, a meta-analysis can in- Systematic reviews are used to answer existing articles describing meta-analysis crease statistical power18 and provide questions7,10,40 about the evidence sup- interpretation,6,13,14,42,61 discuss differences a single numerical value of the overall porting or refuting the effectiveness or in the results of a meta-analysis based on treatment effect. The meta-analysis result efficacy of an intervention.
    [Show full text]
  • Graphical Analysis for Epidemiology, Manufacturing and Marketing Applications
    Graphical Analysis for Epidemiology, Manufacturing and Marketing Applications Andrew Berridge, Michael O’Connell TIBCO Data Science © Copyright 2000-2015 TIBCO Software Inc. Agenda Graphical Analysis for Epidemiology, Manufacturing and Marketing • Epidemiology - meta analysis, with: • Forest Plots • Double-dot Plots • Funnel Plots • Manufacturing • Control Charts • Root Cause Analysis • Operator, Supervisor Dashboards, predicting equipment failure • Sales and Marketing • Infographics • Trend Analysis • Field-force Optimisation 2 © Copyright 2000-2015 TIBCO Software Inc. Epidemiology – Forest Plot Forest Plot • Most common graphical display for presenting results from meta-analyses • Effect estimates displayed with their confidence intervals • Area of symbol proportional to weight of estimate • Larger symbol draws attention to studies with larger weight • i.e. with smaller confidence intervals • Any type of effect estimate can be used: • Odds ratios, risk ratios, hazard ratios, mean differences, etc. 3 © Copyright 2000-2015 TIBCO Software Inc. Epidemiology – Forest Plot • Example showing meta-analysis of Risk Ratio of cardiovascular events • Comparing: • Individuals having one or more copies of any CYP2C19 genetic variant associated with reduced enzyme function • With individuals having none of these • Higher risk ratio corresponds to higher chance of cardiovascular events • Ordered by the weight that they have in the meta-analysis 4 © Copyright 2000-2015 TIBCO Software Inc. Epidemiology – Forest Plot 5 © Copyright 2000-2015 TIBCO Software Inc. Epidemiology – Double Dot Plot Forest Plot vs Double Dot Plot • Forest Plot • No interpretation of result on natural scale of risk • Double Dot Plot adds raw risks in each study to Forest Plot in an additional panel 6 © Copyright 2000-2015 TIBCO Software Inc. Epidemiology – Double Dot Plot (AE Example) 7 © Copyright 2000-2015 TIBCO Software Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • (Sensitivity Analysis Excluding Three Studies). A. Forest Plot (REM) and B
    1 Appendix: Figure S1: Meta-analysis (sensitivity analysis excluding three studies). A. Forest plot (REM) and B. Forest plot (FEM) comparing the mean differences in calprotectin level between severe and non-severe COVID-19. Studies 1-5 are respectively - De Guadiana et al [25]; Shi et al [26]; Silvin et al [12]; Bauer et al [27]; Ojetti et al [28]. C. Funnel plot (for the sensitivity analysis excluding three studies) shows no publication bias, an improvement from the total cohort funnel plot shown in figure 3c. D. Funnel plot (Subgroup analysis - Serum group) shows no publication bias. E. Funnel plot (Subgroup analysis - faecal group) shows some evidence of publication bias with much asymmetry. RAPHAEL UDEH, c3197610, PUBH6303 2 Table S1: Quality assessment for the included cohort / case-control studies using Newcastle- 31-32 Ottawa Scale Study Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Score Chen et al14 * * * * * * * * * 9/9 Shi et al26 * * * * * * * * 8/9 Silvin et al12 * * * * ** * * * 9/9 Bauer et al27 * * * * * * * * 8/9 Effenberger * * * * * * * NR 7/9 et al18 Ojetti et al28 * * * * * * * * 8/9 Britton et * * * * * * * * 8/9 al29 Unterman et * * * * * * * * 8/9 al33 Livanos et * * - - - * * NR 4/9 al34 NB: Items were as follows for cohort studies: 1-representativeness of the exposed cohort; 2- selection of the nonexposed cohort; 3-ascertainment of exposure; 4-demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study; **5-a comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis; 6-assessment of the outcome 7-follow-up period was long enough for outcomes to occur; 8-adequacy of follow-up evaluation (>75% follow-up evaluation, or description for those lost).
    [Show full text]
  • Forestplot: Advanced Forest Plot Using 'Grid' Graphics
    Package ‘forestplot’ September 3, 2021 Version 2.0.1 Title Advanced Forest Plot Using 'grid' Graphics Description A forest plot that allows for multiple confidence intervals per row, custom fonts for each text element, custom confidence intervals, text mixed with expressions, and more. The aim is to extend the use of forest plots beyond meta-analyses. This is a more general version of the original 'rmeta' package's forestplot() function and relies heavily on the 'grid' package. License GPL-2 URL https://gforge.se/packages/ BugReports https://github.com/gforge/forestplot/issues Biarch yes Depends R (>= 3.5.0), grid, magrittr, checkmate Suggests testthat, abind, knitr, rmarkdown, rmeta, dplyr, tidyr, rlang Encoding UTF-8 NeedsCompilation no VignetteBuilder knitr RoxygenNote 7.1.1 Author Max Gordon [aut, cre], Thomas Lumley [aut, ctb] Maintainer Max Gordon <[email protected]> Repository CRAN Date/Publication 2021-09-03 12:30:02 UTC R topics documented: forestplot-package . .2 assertAndRetrieveTidyValue . .3 1 2 forestplot-package dfHRQoL . .3 forestplot . .4 fpColors . 11 fpDrawNormalCI . 13 fpLegend . 19 fpShapesGp . 20 fpTxtGp . 22 getTicks . 23 HRQoL . 24 prDefaultGp . 25 prGetShapeGp . 25 prMergeGp . 26 safeLoadPackage . 27 Index 28 forestplot-package Package description Description The forest plot function, forestplot, is a more general version of the original rmeta-packages forestplot implementation. The aim is at using forest plots for more than just meta-analyses. Details The forestplot: 1. Allows for multiple confidence intervals per row 2. Custom fonts for each text element 3. Custom confidence intervals 4. Text mixed with expressions 5. Legends both on top/left of the plot and within the graph 6.
    [Show full text]
  • How Far Can We Trust Forestry Estimates from Low-Density Lidar Acquisitions? the Cutfoot Sioux Experimental Forest (MN, USA) Case Study
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 2020, VOL. 41, NO. 12, 4549–4567 https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2020.1723173 How far can we trust forestry estimates from low-density LiDAR acquisitions? The Cutfoot Sioux experimental forest (MN, USA) case study Enrico Borgogno Mondinoa, Vanina Fissorea, Michael J. Falkowskib and Brian Palikc aDISAFA, University of Torino, Grugliasco, Italy; bDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA; cApplied Forest Ecology, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Grand Rapids, MN, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Aerial discrete return LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) technol- Received 18 September 2018 ogy (ALS – Aerial Laser Scanner) is now widely used for forest Accepted 4 December 2019 characterization due to its high accuracy in measuring vertical and horizontal forest structure. Random and systematic errors can still occur and these affect the native point cloud, ultimately degrading ALS data accuracy, especially when adopting datasets that were not natively designed for forest applications. A detailed understanding of how uncertainty of ALS data could affect the accuracy of deri- vable forest metrics (e.g. tree height, stem diameter, basal area) is required, looking for eventual error biases that can be possibly modelled to improve final accuracy. In this work a low-density ALS dataset, originally acquired by the State of Minnesota (USA) for non-forestry related purposes (i.e. topographic mapping), was processed attempting to characterize forest inventory parameters for the Cutfoot Sioux Experimental Forest (north-central Minnesota, USA). Since accuracy of estimates strictly depends on the applied species-specific dendrometric models a first required step was to map tree species over the forest.
    [Show full text]