Meta-analyses of treatment effects in randomized control trials are often faced with the problem of missing information required to calculate effect sizes and their sampling variances. Particularly, correlations between pre- and posttest scores are frequently not available. As an ad-hoc solution, researchers impute a constant value for the missing…

When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the…

Meta-analyses combine the results of multiple studies of a common question. Approaches based on effect size estimates from each study are generally regarded as the most informative. However, these methods can only be used if comparable effect sizes can be computed from each study, and this may not be the case due to variation in how the studies…

Three recent papers have provided sequential methods for meta-analysis of two-treatment randomized clinical trials. This paper provides an alternate approach that has three desirable features. First, when carried out prospectively (i.e., we only have the results up to the time of our current analysis), we do not require knowledge of the…

We describe our experience of using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool for randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Objectives: (1) To assess time to complete RoB assessment; (2) To assess inter-rater agreement; and (3) To explore the association between RoB and treatment effect size. Methods: Cochrane risk of…