similar to: Extract confidence intervals from rma object (metafor package)

Dear R-experts, The forest.rma() function from the metafor package creates nice forest plots for presenting the results of a meta-analysis. These plots can be annotated for e.g. giving names to the columns. E.g. as in the documentation of the package: data(dat.bcg) ### meta-analysis of the log relative risks using a random-effects model res <- rma(ai=tpos, bi=tneg, ci=cpos, di=cneg,

Dear R-experts! In a meta-analysis (metafor) I would like to assess the effect of two categorical covariates (A & B) whereas they both have 4 levels. Is my understanding correct that this would require to dummy-code (0,1) each level of each covariate (A & B)? However I am interested in the main-effects and the interaction of these two covariates and the dummy-coding would only allow to

Dear R-community, I'm currently trying to assemble a forest plot using the "forest" function from package "metaphor". Works well. Even the regular "main"-argument works for adding a title to the graph. However, I would like to add one top row which explains the nature of the columns. Very much like the usual header in spreadsheet programs. For example:

Dear R User, Please, I am new to R. I want to overlay density plot for predictive interval pooled result in meta-analysis. http://addictedtor.free.fr/graphiques/graphcode.php?graph=114 Regards Frank Peter

Hi I have tryed to do the meta-regression in metafor package, but I would like to get the standardized coefficients for each variable, however in command:   Ø  res<-rma.uni (yi, vi, method="REML", mods=~cota+DL+uso+gadiente+idade, data= turbidez)   I just have the coefficients no standardized (estimate) of the multiple regression. What I need to do? Thanks Fernanda Melo

Hello metafor users, I'm using metafor to perform a single-effect summary estimate of the raw proportion of patients experiencing a post-operative complication, and I'm interested in seeing if this proportion differs between the three most commonly used surgical techniques. The software is working as expected, but I would like to double check on the interpretation of my mixed-effect model

Hello, Is it possible to have two meta-plots in one graph (not par(mfrow=c(2,1))? But somthing like  library(metafor)  library("igraph")    if (interactive()) {     forest(dat.Treat$RR, ci.lb=dat.Treat$lower, ci.ub=dat.Treat$upper, xlab="Relative Risk",slab=dat.Treat$ID,refline=1)     forest(dat.Control$RR, ci.lb=dat.Control$lower, ci.ub=dat.Control$upper, xlab="Relative

Dear All, As an attempt to highlight the overall pattern in a Forest plot, I would like to "highlight" the area around HR=1. I cannot find any simple tools for painting a grey ribbon between 0.9 and 1.1. Any suggestions? Thank you in advance! Cheers, Patrik [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I am using metafor to create forest plots. This code gives me the expected plot (setting x axis tick marks): forest(forest$OR, ci.lb=forest$Low, ci.ub=forest$High, at=log(c(.05, .25, 1, 10)), slab=forest$SNP, atransf=exp) As does this (setting colors): forest(forest$OR, ci.lb=forest$Low, ci.ub=forest$High, col=c(1,2,3), slab=forest$SNP, atransf=exp) But if I try to set both 'at' and

Dear R-experts! Running a meta-analysis (using the magnificent metafor-package), I use cohen's d as a main outcome measure in a random-effects model. For most of the samples cohen's d is derived form a comparison of two groups (A & B). However some studies report results from an ANOVA (one-factor with three levels: C,D,E) whereas two groups (C,D) correspond to one group in the other

Dear R community, I'm using the ,metafor'-package by Wolfgang Viechtbauer (Version: 0.5-5) to calculate random-effects meta-analyses using Correlations and Sample Sizes as the raw data. (By the way: Really a nice piece of work, Wolfgang! Thanks heaps.) I specified the "rma.uni' function so that it looks like this: MAergebnis<-rma.uni(ri=PosOutc, ni=N,

Hi (R 2.13.1, OSX 10.6.8) I am trying to use predict.rma with continuous and categorical variables. The argument newmods in predict.rma seems to handle coviariates, but appears to falter on factors. While I realise that the coefficients for factors provide the answers, the goal is to eventually use predict.rma with ANCOVA type model with an interaction. Here is a self contained example

Hi, I have been looking for an R package which allowed to do meta-analysis (both pairwise and network/mixed-treatment) at arm-level rather than at trial-level, the latter being the common way in which meta-analysis is done. By arm-level meta-analysis I mean one that accounts for data provided at the level of the individual arms of each trial and that does not simply derive the difference between

Hello, I experimented the Metafor and Meta packages in the scope of replacing Excel for meta-analysis. I performed the first working example provided in Michael Borenstein's book "Introduction to Meta-Analysis" with Excel, Metafor and Meta. The numbers given by my spreadsheet, which I validated from Borenstein's book, conrespond quite closely to those given by Meta, but

Dear users of metafor, I am working on a meta-analysis using the metafor package. I have a excel csv database that I am working with. I am interested in pooling the effect measures for a particular subgroup (European women) in this csv database. I am conducting both sub-group and meta-regression. In subgroup-analyses, I have stratified the database to create a separate csv file just for European

Dear R users, In metafor 1.6-0, the Mantel-Haenszel method is implemented by the rma.mh() function. I have observed that the sum of the weights computed by weights(x) doesn't add to 100% when x is an object of class rma.mh. The consequences of this fact can be clearly seen when a forest diagram is drawn with forest(x), which calls weights(x) (or more precisely, the method weights.rma.mh()

Hello. A quick question about incorporating variation due to study in the metafor package. I'm working with a particular data set for meta-analysis where some studies have multiple measurements. Others do not. So, let's say the effect I'm looking at is response to two different kinds of drug treatment - let's call their effect sizes T1 and T2. Some studies have multiple

Dear all, I'm currently applying a mixed model approach to meta analysis using the package metafor. I use the "model.matrix()" function to create dummy variables. The option btt gives me the combined test for the dummies. Problem is, I don't know which indices I have to use, and can't really figure it out from the help file and the examples. I use following code : X <-

Hi, I would like to do a meta-analysis, i.e., a mixed-effects regression, but I don't seem to get what I want using both the nlme or metafor packages. My question: is there indeed no way to do it? And if so, is there another package I could use? Here are the details: In my meta-analysis I'm comparing different studies that report a measure at time zero and after a certain followup

Hello, Great to see the new metafor package for meta-analysis. I would like to perform a meta-analysis in which I initially calculate the intercept of the model with a nested random-effects structure. In lme, this would be model<- lme(v3~1, random=~1|species/study, weights = varFixed(~Wt), method = "REML") where multiple effects sizes are measured for some studies and more than