Table 2.
# | 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).