Introduction to Proportional Meta Analysis

What is/are Proportional Meta Analysis?

Proportional Meta Analysis - Failure rate data were analyzed with a random-effects proportional meta-analysis (weighted for individual study size), and forest plots were constructed to determine any statistically significant differences between BHMTs versus simple tears (longitudinal, radial, or horizontal), medial versus lateral BHMTs, isolated procedures versus repairs with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and tears in red-red versus red-white zones. ^[1] A proportional meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model in anticipation of unobserved heterogeneity. ^[2] A proportional meta-analysis was conducted to pool 1, 3- and 5-year survival and disease recurrence rates following NCR-LT. ^[3] Method This was a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of observational studies. ^[4] Proportional meta-analysis was used to summarize effects of the surgical techniques included. ^[5] We performed a proportional meta-analysis. ^[6] A one-way proportional meta-analysis was performed on 19 of the studies to generate the pooled prevalence of alopecia and IBD. ^[7] Data on surgical rates, objective response rates (ORRs), pathologic responses, and adverse event (AE) rates were retrieved for proportional meta-analysis. ^[8] A proportional meta-analysis was carried out using STATA software (StataCorp). ^[9] A single-arm proportional meta-analysis and conventional pair-wise meta-analysis were performed to compare different outcomes with a random effects model. ^[10] A systematic literature review and proportional meta-analysis of the available case series studies of rectal biopsies were performed in this study. ^[11] METHODS We performed a proportional meta-analysis. ^[12] Proportional meta-analysis is becoming an increasingly common technique employed for the synthesis of single group data. ^[13] They then conducted a proportional meta-analysis to compare the pooled recurrence rates between STR and GTR in the included studies. ^[14] Data were extracted and proportional meta-analysis was performed using the Freeman–Tukey transformation random effect model. ^[15] Proportional meta-analysis showed that only 23% of patients passed RTS test batteries. ^[16] Proportional Meta-analysis was performed on both outcomes with a random-effects model and the 95% confidential intervals were calculated by Stata 12. ^[17] We did proportional meta-analysis using a random-effect model due to heterogeneity among the included studies. ^[18]

random effects model

A proportional meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model in anticipation of unobserved heterogeneity. ^[1] A single-arm proportional meta-analysis and conventional pair-wise meta-analysis were performed to compare different outcomes with a random effects model. ^[2] Proportional Meta-analysis was performed on both outcomes with a random-effects model and the 95% confidential intervals were calculated by Stata 12. ^[3]