Evidence map›Paper›PMID 1626547›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology1992

Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with applications to meta-analysis.

S Greenland, M P Longnecker

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,055 papers, 158 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,055citing papers in PubMed, 158 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1,055 citing papers in PubMed, 158 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

995 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

S GreenlandDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles.
M P Longnecker

Funding

METHODS FOR CONFOUNDER SELECTION IN EVALUATION RESEARCHR03HS005753 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI GREENLAND, SANDER · 1988 to 1988
–
AHRQ HHS HS 05753-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analysis often requires pooling of correlated estimates to compute regression slopes (trends) across different exposure or treatment levels. The authors propose two methods that account for the correlations but require only the summary estimates and marginal data from the studies. These methods provide more efficient estimates of regression slope, more accurate variance estimates, and more valid heterogeneity tests than those previously available. One method also allows estimation of nonlinear trend components, such as quadratic effects. The authors illustrate these methods in a meta-analysis of alcohol use and breast cancer.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugMeta-Analysis as TopicAlcohol DrinkingBreast NeoplasmsHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisLogistic ModelsOdds RatioRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID1626547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.