Exact(18)
In this study, the summary coding of yes and no (reference) was used.
In this study, the summary statistics were not significantly different [ 36].
Excluding this study, the summary OR is 0.73 (95% CI: 0.49 1.1) and heterogeneity is greatly reduced (P=0.151).
By using definition (b) from the Greenland study, the summary RR was 1.45 (95% CI 0.85 2.47, Figure 1B), again with little evidence of heterogeneity (Phet = 0.923).
After excluding that study, the summary ORs (95% CIs) for TC and TT genotypes were 1.09 (0.90–1.33) and 1.73 (0.95–3.14), respectively.
Based on the EUROCARE study, the summary age-adjusted 5-year RSR was significantly higher for cancers of salivary glands than pharynx (especially hypopharynx) [ 13].
Similar(42)
The statistical combination of study results may be complicated by the variety of ways that individual studies report the summary statistics.
Higher cancer detection rates were observed when comparing DBT + FFDM with FFDM in two European studies: the summary difference per 1000 screens was 2.43 (95% CI: 1.8 to 3.1).
For the cohort studies, the summary risk was 1.11 and for the case-control studies it was 1.57.
To estimate the influence of individual studies, the summary ORs were computed omitting one study at a time.
After excluding these three studies, the summary ORs (95% CIs) for GA and AA genotypes were 1.08 (0.75–1.55) and 4.04 (0.57–28.8), respectively.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com