|
#
|
Author(s)
|
Date
|
Studies
|
Input type
|
|---|
|
1
|
Lau et al. [4]
|
1992
|
33
|
DD – large
|
|
2
|
Hodnett et al. [29]
|
2001
|
5
|
DD – small
|
|
3
|
Teo et al. [30]
|
1991
|
16
|
DD – publication bias
|
|
4
|
Crowley [31]
|
2000
|
17
|
DD – rare events
|
|
5
|
Lightowler et al. [32]
|
2003
|
5
|
DC – small
|
|
6
|
Wahlbeck et al. [33]
|
2000
|
11
|
DC – medium large
|
|
7
|
Pagliaro et al. [34]
|
1992
|
19
|
C – odds ratio
|
|
8
|
Law et al. [35]
|
1994
|
10
|
C – risk difference
|
- The validation was done with eight data sets from meta-analysis that have been published in major peer-reviewed journals. The data sets were selected to represent a wide spectrum of potential input for meta-analysis. Abbreviations: "DD" = descriptive data for dichotomous outcomes (two-by-two table data), "DC" = descriptive data for continuous outcomes (means with their standard deviations and sample sizes), and "C" = comparative data (association measures with standards error or confidence intervals).
