Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling [General Statistics]

posted by ElMaestro – Denmark, 2010-04-10 00:02 (5924 d 09:09 ago) – Posting: # 5071
Views: 10,644

Hi HS,

I do not have the definitive answer, but I have a comment and a question.

Comment:
Study will be a between-subject factor. Thus it should not influence the intra/residual. Adding "study" as a factor thus might not mean much in terms of the outcome as compared to an anova and the subsequent CI without that factor.

Question:
Can you show a bit more? I wonder why the combined CV's (9.31%) are higher than those from the two individual studies. Were the subjects uniquely coded - i.e. "Subject 1" was uniquely assigned to either study 1 or 2 etc?

Best regards
EM.

—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Meta-analysis earlybird 2010-04-09 07:54
- Meta-analysis in SAS d_labes 2010-04-09 08:35
  - Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-09 20:33
    - Meta-analysis vs. naïve poolingElMaestro 2010-04-09 22:02
      - Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-09 22:11
        
        Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-09 22:20
        
        Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-10 00:49
        
        Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-10 08:13
        
        Yes, but... Helmut 2010-04-10 14:46
        
        Yes, but... ElMaestro 2010-04-11 11:44
        
        Yes, but... Helmut 2010-04-11 14:27
    - Meta-analysis alpha d_labes 2010-04-12 13:32
      - Meta-analysis alpha Helmut 2010-04-12 14:25
        
        2-Study Meta-analysis d_labes 2010-04-12 15:03
        
        2-Study Meta-analysis Helmut 2010-04-12 15:18
        
        Anatomical miracle d_labes 2010-04-12 15:33
        
        Anatomical miracle Helmut 2010-04-12 15:40

Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling [General Sta­tis­tics]

Complete thread:

Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling [General Statistics]