Comparing and combining studies of bronchial responsiveness. Issue 5 (1st May 2002)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chinn, S
• Is Part Of: Thorax. Volume 57:Issue 5(2002)
• Page Start: 393
• Page End: 395
• Publication Date: 2002-05-01
• Subjects: bronchial responsiveness -- protocol variation -- effect size -- statistical analysis; Chest -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Thorax; Chest -- Diseases; Periodicals; Periodicals; 617.54
• DOI: 10.1136/thorax.57.5.393
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0040-6376

Abstract

Abstract : Background: There is no standardised protocol for the measurement of bronchial responsiveness. Results from different studies are difficult to compare and combine. Methods: Analyses are divided between those of a continuous outcome, which can be directly standardised as effect size, and those based on a binary outcome. A published method is used to convert an odds ratio to equivalent effect size. Results: The use of effect size allows comparison between studies using a continuous outcome but different protocols, provided the relevant standard deviation is reported. Effect size from a continuous outcome and that derived from an odds ratio from an equivalent analysis gave similar results. Conclusions: Systematic reviews which include both continuous effect estimates and odds ratios can include both in one meta-analysis, provided relevant standard deviations are published for the former. Authors are encouraged to report these in all fields in which measurement protocols vary.