ArticleStatistics in medicine2019
A parametric meta-analysis.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Citicoline: pharmacological and clinical review, 2022 update.Revista de neurologia · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In a meta-analysis, we assemble a sample of independent, nonidentically distributed p-values. The Fisher's combination procedure provides a chi-squared test of whether the p-values were sampled from the null uniform distribution. After rejecting the null uniform hypothesis, we are faced with the problem of how to combine the assembled p-values. We first derive a distribution for the p-values. The distribution is parameterized by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the sample size. It includes the uniform as a special case. The maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the SMD can then be obtained from the independent, nonidentically distributed p-values. The MLE can be interpreted as a weighted average of the study-specific estimate of the effect size with a shrinkage. The method is broadly applicable to p-values obtained in the maximum likelihood framework. Simulation studies show that our method can effectively estimate the effect size with as few as 6 p-values in the meta-analyses. We also present a Bayes estimator for SMD and a method to account for publication bias. We demonstrate our methods on several meta-analyses that assess the potential benefits of citicoline for patients with memory disorders or patients recovering from ischemic stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.