ArticlePloS one2020
A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Fluorescence imaging in reducing anastomotic leak after left-sided colorectal resections: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.ANZ journal of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Distribution and Occurrence of Cercospora Leaf Spot of Mungbean (Plant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Efficacy of tylosin phosphate for liver abscess control in feedlot cattle, by treatment duration: a Bayesian network meta-analysis supported by a randomized trial.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) threat 5 years following laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB): which measure of association is appropriate, odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR)?Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of Tobacco 21 policies and youth tobacco use: implications for future policy research.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Lower Rates of Hypocalcemia Following Near-Infrared Autofluorescence Use in Thyroidectomy: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Multi-Trait Genomic Risk Stratification for Type 2 Diabetes.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In clinical trials and observational studies, the effect of an intervention or exposure can be reported as an absolute or relative comparative measure such as risk difference, odds ratio or risk ratio, or at the group level with the estimated risk of disease in each group. For meta-analysis of results with covariate adjustment, the log of the odds ratio (log odds ratio), with its standard error, is a commonly used measure of effect. However, extracting the adjusted log odds ratio from the reported estimates of disease risk in each group is not straightforward. Here, we propose a method to transform the adjusted probability of the event in each group to the log of the odds ratio and obtain the appropriate (approximate) standard error, which can then be used in a meta-analysis. We also use example data to compare our method with two other methods and show that our method is superior in calculating the standard error of the log odds ratio.
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.