Related Experiment Videos
Comparing and combining studies of bronchial responsiveness
1Department of Public Health Sciences, King's College, Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London SE1 3QD, UK. sue.chinn@kcl.ac.uk
Thorax
|April 30, 2002
Summary
Standardizing bronchial responsiveness measurement is crucial for comparable research. Using effect size, even from odds ratios, allows combining diverse study results in meta-analyses.
Area of Science:
- Pulmonary Medicine
- Biostatistics
Background:
- No standardized protocol exists for measuring bronchial responsiveness.
- This lack of standardization hinders the comparison and combination of results from different studies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To propose a method for standardizing bronchial responsiveness measurements.
- To enable the inclusion of diverse study data in meta-analyses.
Main Methods:
- Analyses were divided into continuous and binary outcomes.
- A published method was employed to convert odds ratios to equivalent effect sizes.
Main Results:
- Effect size facilitates comparison between studies with continuous outcomes, even with varying protocols, if standard deviations are reported.
- Effect sizes derived from continuous outcomes and odds ratios showed similar results.
Conclusions:
- Systematic reviews can incorporate both continuous effect estimates and odds ratios in meta-analyses if standard deviations are published.
- Researchers are encouraged to report standard deviations to improve data comparability across studies.