Linked Life Data

9221627

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/9221627

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
1997-7-14
pubmed:abstractText
Metaanalyses of epidemiological studies have increased during the last years and are often used to evaluate the effect of risk factors which are inconsistent in different studies, mainly for small risk factors. Very often a metaanalysis is performed from published data. In this article we discuss this form of a metaanalysis and investigate whether the requirement to get reliable information is achievable with it. We mainly ask questions whether qualitative and quantitative dose-response analysis can be performed. We point out the differences between metaanalysis from experimental data and clinical randomized studies and epidemiological studies. We discuss different arguments that were given for performing metaanalysis in clinical trials and investigate whether they are also valid in observational studies. We mainly concentrate on the problem of estimating a single pooled risk estimate. Two examples from literature are used to show problems with metaanalysis from published data.
pubmed:language
ger
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
0303-8408
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
42
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
95-104
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1997
pubmed:articleTitle
[Limitations of meta-analysis from published data in epidemiological research].
pubmed:affiliation
Abteilung Epidemiologie, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, English Abstract