Great idea, and I am keen to participate.
But, to prevent the project not meeting SS's first rule of thumb for
critical appraisal (first focus on how the data was collected), we should
clarify the research question and protocol before hapahazardly collecting
data.
So, here is an outline suggestion for the first draft protocol:
DRAFT
Question
Can eyeballing a meta-analysis's forest plot with the pooled effect
blanked out accurately estimate the presence/absence of significance in
the pooled estimate of effect.
Methods
Data collection: First set: 30 forest plots of the primary outcome measure
in 30 Cochrane systematic reviews. Second set: 10 forest plots of the
primary outcome measure in 10 Cochrane systematic reviews where the
primary outcome was just signifiant AND 10 forest plots of the primary
outcome measure in 10 Cochrane systematic reviews where the primary
outcome was just NOT signifiant.
Primary outcome measures: sensitivity and specificy of eyeballing;
positive and negative likelihood ratios of eyeballing.
Any volunteers to make a numbered list of Cochrane SRs that could be used
for randomizing selection?
Any volunteers to screen Cochrane SRs for forest plots where the
significance is just above/below 5%?
Michael
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:21:02 -0400, Djulbegovic, Benjamin
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Fantastic, Paul
>Let's do it- happy to prepare the material. So, can I ask those
>interested to send me forest plots that we should include (it would be
>nice if the identifiers such as the name of interventions or trials id
>can be removed). Also, we can extend this invitation to other volunteers
>as well (so far, we have you and Martin)- so, I am asking those who'd
>like to participate to send me their contacts.
>This is going to be a fun- it is great to see that one off-hand remark
>can potentially proceed to an actionable project.
>Best
>Ben
|