Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-04-10 00:11 (5912 d 15:16 ago) – Posting: # 5072
Views: 10,594

Dear ElMaestro!

❝ 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.


Right.

❝ Can you show a bit more?


Just leaving the office. Maybe next year. ;-)

❝ I wonder why the combined CV's (9.31%) are higher than those from the two individual studies.


Surprised me too.

❝ Were the subjects uniquely coded - i.e. "Subject 1" was uniquely assigned to either study 1 or 2 etc?


Yes. Codes were
study (1-2)
treatment (test/reference)
subject (001-013 in study 1, and 101-112 in study 2)
period (1-2)

P.S.: Nice signature.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,570 registered users;
161 visitors (0 registered, 161 guests [including 24 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:27 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution.    Theodosius Dobzhansky

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5