Exercise: Endarterectomy versus stenting using CMA2, answer 3

Question 3: On the CMA2 analysis screen, what is missing for the study of Brooks et al. (2004)? Why is it missing?

Suggested answer:

You should see something like this:

Model	Study name	Statistics for each study
		Odds ratio	Lower limit	Upper limit	Z-value	P-value
	Naylor 1998	0.047	0.002	0.994	–1.963	0.050
	Wallstent	0.338	0.116	0.983	–1.991	0.046
	CAVATAS	0.991	0.553	1.778	–0.030	0.976
	Brooks	3.178	0.127	79.834	0.703	0.482
	SAPPHIRE	1.150	0.407	3.247	0.264	0.792
	EVA-3S	0.381	0.179	0.810	–2.507	0.012
	SPACE	0.837	0.536	1.306	–0.784	0.433
	BACASS	3.316	0.120	91.601	0.708	0.479
	ICSS 2009	0.573	0.388	0.847	–2.796	0.005
Fixed effect		0.676	0.535	0.853	–3.293	0.001

There is one study labeled "Brooks". To see which it is, you will have to use the mouse to click the right of the "Study name" column on the CMA2 analysis screen and drag it to the right, to widen the column:

Model	Study name	Statistics for each study
		Odds ratio	Lower limit	Upper limit	Z-value	P-value
	Naylor 1998	0.047	0.002	0.994	–1.963	0.050
	Wallstent 2001	0.338	0.116	0.983	–1.991	0.046
	CAVATAS 2001	0.991	0.553	1.778	–0.030	0.976
	Brooks 2001	3.178	0.127	79.834	0.703	0.482
	SAPPHIRE 2004	1.150	0.407	3.247	0.264	0.792
	EVA-3S 2006	0.381	0.179	0.810	–2.507	0.012
	SPACE 2006	0.837	0.536	1.306	–0.784	0.433
	BACASS 2007	3.316	0.120	91.601	0.708	0.479
	ICSS 2009	0.573	0.388	0.847	–2.796	0.005
Fixed effect		0.676	0.535	0.853	–3.293	0.001

The results for Brooks et al. (2004) are missing completely. There is no mention of the study. This is because there is no odds ratio because there are no events in either group. This study has been dropped by CMA. It will not appear in any plots

Back to question.

Back to Systematic Reviews index.

To Martin Bland's home page.

This page maintained by Martin Bland.
Last updated: 19 February, 2010.

Back to top.