Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling [General Statistics]

posted by ElMaestro – Denmark, 2010-04-10 00:20 (5915 d 10:02 ago) – Posting: # 5073
Views: 10,722

Ahoy!

❝ Yes. Codes were

❝ study (1-2)

❝ treatment (test/reference)

❝ subject (001-013 in study 1, and 101-112 in study 2)

❝ period (1-2)

There's a period 1 and 2 in both studies, so one could code it as the period-by-study interaction in analyses where study is included. I have not thought this fully through and if I tried my brain would prolly just idle because I am not a statistician.

❝ P.S.: Nice signature.

Dank je wel.

Best regards
EM.

—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Meta-analysis earlybird 2010-04-09 07:54 [General Statistics]
- 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 pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-09 22:02
      - Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-09 22:11
        
        Meta-analysis vs. naïve poolingElMaestro 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]