| ²é¿´: 347 | »Ø¸´: 0 | ||
wawa3009гæ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
|
[ÇóÖú]
Çó<introduction to Meta-analysis>ÖÐ2¾ä»°ÔõôÀí½â
|
|
Çó<introduction to Meta-analysis>ÖÐÒÔÏÂбÌå×ÖµÄ2¾ä»°ÔõôÀí½â 1¹ØÓÚ±ê×¼¾ùÊý²îµÄ The standardized mean difference can be considered as being comparable across studies based on either of two arguments (Hedges and Olkin, 1985). If the outcome measures in all studies are linear transformations of each other, the standardized mean difference can be seen as the mean difference that would have been obtained if all data were transformed to a scalewhere the standard deviation within-groups was equal to 1.0. 2¹ØÓÚ·çÏÕ±È ±ÈÊý±È ·çÏÕ²îÕ⼸¸öЧӦÁ¿µÄʹÓà The risk ratio and odds ratio are relative measures, and therefore tend to be relatively insensitive to differences in baseline events. By contrast, the risk difference is an absolute measure and as such is very sensitive to the baseline risk. If we wanted to test a compound and believed that it reduced the risk of an event by 20%regardless of the baseline risk, then by using a ratio index we would expect to see the same effect size across studies even if the baseline risk varied from study to study. The risk difference, by contrast, would be higher in studies with a higher base rate ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
278Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
297Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
0703»¯Ñ§297Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏѧ˶301·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
280Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
311Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
313Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
317Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
307Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
















»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥