Comparing and combining studies of bronchial responsiveness

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There is no standardised protocol for the measurement of bronchial responsiveness. Results from different studies are difficult to compare and combine. Methods: Analyses are divided between those of a continuous outcome, which can be directly standardised as effect size, and those based on a binary outcome. A published method is used to convert an adds ratio to equivalent effect size. Results: The use of effect size allows comparison between studies using a continuous outcome but different protocols provided the relevant standard deviation is reported. Effect size from a continuous outcome and that derived from an odds ratio from an equivalent analysis gave similar results. Conclusions: Systematic reviews which include both continuous effect estimates and odds ratios can include both in one meta-analysis, provided relevant standard deviations are published for the former. Authors are encouraged to report these in all fields in which measurement protocols vary.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)393 - 395
Number of pages3
JournalThorax
Volume57
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing and combining studies of bronchial responsiveness'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this