Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39846155›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical statistics

Taylor Series Approximation for Accurate Generalized Confidence Intervals of Ratios of Log-Normal Standard Deviations for Meta-Analysis Using Means and Standard Deviations in Time Scale.

Pei-Fu Chen, Franklin Dexter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Pei-Fu ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-0192-5377
Franklin DexterDepartment of Anesthesia, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5897-2484

Funding

Departmental
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With contemporary anesthetic drugs, the efficacy of general anesthesia is assured. Health-economic and clinical objectives are related to reductions in the variability in dosing, variability in recovery, etc. Consequently, meta-analyses for anesthesiology research would benefit from quantification of ratios of standard deviations of log-normally distributed variables (e.g., surgical duration). Generalized confidence intervals can be used, once sample means and standard deviations in the raw, time, scale, for each study and group have been used to estimate the mean and standard deviation of the logarithms of the times (i.e., "log-scale"). We examine the matching of the first two moments versus also using higher-order terms, following Higgins et al. 2008 and Friedrich et al. 2012. Monte Carlo simulations revealed that using the first two moments 95% confidence intervals had coverage 92%-95%, with small bias. Use of higher-order moments worsened confidence interval coverage for the log ratios, especially for coefficients of variation in the time scale of 50% and for larger

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicComputer SimulationConfidence IntervalsData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalMonte Carlo MethodResearch DesignTime Factorsanesthesia timeextubation timegeneralized confidence intervalslog‐normal distributionsurgical time

Identifiers

PMID39846155
PMCPMC11755222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.