bias in impact evaluation evidence from a systematic review：从一个系统性的回顾评价证据的偏见.pptVIP

下载本文档

7
0
约1.94万字
约 46页
2018-06-23 发布于浙江
举报
版权申诉

bias in impact evaluation evidence from a systematic review：从一个系统性的回顾评价证据的偏见.ppt

1、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。。
2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
4、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
5、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
6、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

bias in impact evaluation evidence from a systematic review：从一个系统性的回顾评价证据的偏见

Egger test for FFS-participant yields Coef. t Pt const -0.047 -1.70 0.100 slope 3.085 4.14 0.000 ‘Trim and fill’ analysis (Duval Tweedie, 2000) Iteratively trims (removes) smaller studies causing asymmetry Uses trimmed plot to re-estimate the mean effect size Fills (replaces) omitted studies and mirror-images Provides an estimate of the number of missing (filled) studies and a new estimate of the mean effect size Major limitations include: misinterpretation of results, assumption of a symmetric funnel plot, poor performance in the presence of heterogeneity ‘Trim fill’ for FFS-participant yields Results of meta-trim 95% lower Effect size 95% upper Num. studies Meta- analysis 1.16 1.23 1.32 31 Filled meta- analysis 1.03 1.10 1.17 40 Cumulative meta-analysis Typically used to update pooled effect size estimate with each new study cumulatively over time Can use as an alternative to update pooled effect size estimate with each study in order of largest to smallest sample size If pooled effect size does not shift with the addition of small n studies, provides some evidence against publication bias Cumulative meta-analysis for FFS-participant yields: studies ordered by sample size from largest to smallest The evidence for ‘small study effects’ seems strong, but is this due to publication bias? Asymmetry could be due to factors other than publication bias, e.g., methodological quality (smaller studies with lower quality may have exaggerated treatment effects) Artefactual variation (e.g. outcome measurement) Chance True heterogeneity due to intervention characteristics (FFS-type, region, crop, follow-up length) Assessing funnel plot symmetry relies entirely on subjective visual judgment Analysis by study quality Contour Enhanced Funnel Plots Based on premise that statistical significance is most important factor determining publication Funnel plot with additional contour lines associated with ‘milestones’ of statistical significance: p = .01, .05, .1 If studie