Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan;62(1):69-98.
doi: 10.1002/bimj.201900036. Epub 2019 Sep 25.

Meta-analysis of the difference of medians

Affiliations

Meta-analysis of the difference of medians

Sean McGrath et al. Biom J. 2020 Jan.

Abstract

We consider the problem of meta-analyzing two-group studies that report the median of the outcome. Often, these studies are excluded from meta-analysis because there are no well-established statistical methods to pool the difference of medians. To include these studies in meta-analysis, several authors have recently proposed methods to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation from the median, sample size, and several commonly reported measures of spread. Researchers frequently apply these methods to estimate the difference of means and its variance for each primary study and pool the difference of means using inverse variance weighting. In this work, we develop several methods to directly meta-analyze the difference of medians. We conduct a simulation study evaluating the performance of the proposed median-based methods and the competing transformation-based methods. The simulation results show that the median-based methods outperform the transformation-based methods when meta-analyzing studies that report the median of the outcome, especially when the outcome is skewed. Moreover, we illustrate the various methods on a real-life data set.

Keywords: median; meta-analysis; quantile estimation; skewed data; two-group.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2010). Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLOS Medicine, 7 (9), e1000326.
    1. Beaumont, M. A., Zhang, W., & Balding, D. J. (2002). Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics, 162(4), 2025-2035.
    1. Blackwell, A. D., Trumble, B. C., Suarez, I. M., Stieglitz, J., Beheim, B., Snodgrass, J. J. … Gurven, M. (2016). Immune function in Amazonian horticulturalists. Annals of Human Biology, 43(4), 382-396.
    1. Bland, M. (2014). Estimating mean and standard deviation from the sample size, three quartiles, minimum and maximum. International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research, 4(1), 57-64.
    1. Boehme, C. C., Nicol, M. P., Nabeta, P., Michael, J. S., Gotuzzo, E., Tahirli, R. … Perkins, M. D. (2011). Feasibility, diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness of decentralised use of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for diagnosis of tuberculosis and multidrug resistance: a multicentre implementation study. Lancet, 377(9776), 1495-1505.

Publication types

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources