Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-04-10 00:11 (5911 d 10:51 ago) – Posting: # 5072
Views: 10,588

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, 1,571 registered users;
145 visitors (0 registered, 145 guests [including 16 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:02 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Always listen to experts.
They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why.
Then do it.    Robert A. Heinlein

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