A graphical display useful for meta-analysis

Graphical methods are frequently used in meta-analysis to summarize their results and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity across studies. In this paper, we illustrate a graphical method for meta-analysis of studies with dichotomous exposures and outcomes that complements other graphical and analytical approaches to meta-analysis. In prospective studies, the proportion of cases among the unexposed is plotted on the horizontal axis versus the proportion of cases among the exposed on the vertical axis. Contour lines for equal values of relative risk, odds ratio or risk difference and for the combined estimate of effect and its confidence interval are then superimposed on the graph. In case-control studies, the proportion of exposed controls is plotted on the horizontal axis versus the proportion of exposed cases on the vertical axis, although only the contour lines of equal odds ratios yield direct epidemiological interpretation. In these graphs, the distribution of the individual estimates of effect with respect to the contour lines offers a due as to the adequacy of the scale of measurement used (additive or multiplicative). This graphical method also permits direct inspection of the range of disease frequency in follow-up studies and of the range of exposure in case-control studies. Its use is illustrated with the aid of 3 examples derived from the literature.

[1]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[2]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  S Greenland,et al.  Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. , 1987, Epidemiologic reviews.

[4]  F Mosteller,et al.  Some Statistical Methods for Combining Experimental Results , 1990, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[5]  J. Carlin Meta-analysis for 2 x 2 tables: a Bayesian approach. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  S Greenland,et al.  Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. , 1994, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  S Senn,et al.  Importance of trends in the interpretation of an overall odds ratio in the meta-analysis of clinical trials. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  A. M. Walker,et al.  Odd man out: a graphical approach to meta-analysis. , 1988, American journal of public health.

[9]  F. Mosteller,et al.  A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[10]  L. Moses Graphical methods in statistical analysis. , 1987, Annual review of public health.

[11]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. , 1992, Epidemiologic reviews.

[12]  R. Peto,et al.  Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. , 1985, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[13]  Jerome Cornfield,et al.  A Statistical Problem Arising from Retrospective Studies , 1956 .

[14]  T A Louis,et al.  Findings for public health from meta-analyses. , 1985, Annual review of public health.

[15]  Ian T. Jolliffe,et al.  Graphical Representation of Data Using Principal Components , 1986 .

[16]  K A L'Abbé,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical research. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.