Emily DeVoto wrote:
> risks and benefits because they are more simple and meaningful than
> relative measures. (E.g., 25 out of 100 women in the exemestane group
> had a recurrence of breast cancer, compared to 35 out of 100 women in
> the tamoxifen group.)
this is wise... You are probably familiar with this paper:
Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Medicine. Communicating
statistical information. Science. 2000 Dec 22;290(5500):2261-2.
>
> I don't suppose there's any way to back-calculate estimates of absolute
> risk and benefits from summaries of studies, is there? I don't see
Yes, if the paper reports all the figures along with the forest plot (as
the Cochrane reviews surely do). Just enter those figures in your
favorite meta-analysis program and ask for a plot of "risk difference"
instead of the osual OR or RR
If there is a proper way of obtaining correct pooled estimates of the
separate risk, I also would be very curious to know.
But please be warned that often studies are really "forced in" meta
analyses even if they are very heterogeneous, so to obtain a reasonable
estimate of baseline risk you may need to re-select the studies (and
possibly devise a new specific search strategy).
regards
Piersante Sestini
|