Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 58, Issue 6 , Pages 579-588 , June 2005

Uncertainty method improved on best–worst case analysis in a binary meta-analysis

  • Carrol Gamble

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, Shelleys Cottage, Brownlow Street, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, L69 3GS, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
    • ,
  • Sally Hollis

      Affiliations

    • Medical Statistics Unit, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

,Accepted 23 September 2004.

References 

  1. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319:670–674
  2. Shih W. Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2002;3:4
  3. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in healthcare: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed.. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001;302
  4. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg WMC, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 1st ed.. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997;
  5. Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Analysing and presenting results. In:  Alderson P,  Green S,  Higgins JPT editor. Cochrane reviewers' handbook 4.2.1 [updated December 2003]; Section 8. In The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2004;
  6. Omari AAA, Preston C, Garner P. Artemether-lumefantrine for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria. (Cochrane Review) In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software; 2002;CD003125
  7. Woolf B. On estimating the relation between blood group and disease. Ann Hum Genet. 1955;19:251–253
  8. Hollis S. A graphical sensitivity analysis for clinical trials with non-ignorable missing binary outcome. Stat Med. 2002;21:3823–3834
  9. Molenberghs G, Kenward MG, Goetghebeur E. Sensitivity analysis for incomplete contingency tables: the Slovenian plebiscite case. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2001;50:15–29
  10. Heitjan DF. Ignorability and bias in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999;18:2421–2434
  11. Miller ME, Morgan TM, Espeland MA, Emerson SS. Group comparisons involving missing data in clinical trials: a comparison of estimates and power (size) for some simple approaches. Stat Med. 2001;20:2383–2397
  12. Little RJA. Modeling the drop-out mechanism in longitudinal studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90:1112–1121
  13. Wright CC, Sim J. Intention-to-treat approach to data from randomized controlled trials: a sensitivity analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:833–842
  14. Sutton AJ, Abrams K, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester: Wiley; 2000;199–204
  15. Unnebrink K, Windeler J. Sensitivity analysis by worst and best case assessment: is it really sensitive?. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:835–839
  16. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G, Hébert P. Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ. 2002;325:652–654
  17. Glasziou PP. Meta-analysis adjusting for compliance: the example of screening for breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:1251–1256
  18. Dobson A, Dear K. Comment [on: Givens GH, Smith DD, Tweedie RL. Publication bias in meta-analysis: a Bayesian data augmentation approach to account for issues exemplified in the passive smoking debate. Stat Sci 1997;12:221–40; discussion 241–50]. Stat Sci 1997;12: 245–6.
  19. Lewis JA, Machin D. Intention to treat: who should use ITT?. Br J Cancer. 1993;68:647–650
  20. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694

PII: S0895-4356(05)00041-7

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.013

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 58, Issue 6 , Pages 579-588 , June 2005

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution