Reference no: EM132241945
Meta-Analysis Forest Plot Assignment -
Using the Nanninga, et al 2018 article provided on CANVAS to answers about the elements in the table below to appraise the article. Include a brief comment to support your yes or no answer. You are not expected to recopy the article. Additionally, using data from Nanninga, et al shown below, create a forest plot. Each forest plot should have appropriate labels and formatting (see examples provided). Answer the questions below and submit them along with a PDF of the forest plot to the quiz on the CANVAS page.
Suggested Article: Nanninga S, Lhachimi SK, Bolte G. Impact of public smoking bans on children's exposure to tobacco smoke at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2018 Jun 21;18(1):749. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5679-z. PubMed PMID: 29925343.
DATA for the Forest Plot
Author(s) and Year
|
After Legislation
|
Before Legislation
|
Exposed Children
|
All Children
|
Exposed Children
|
All Children
|
Hawkins, 2012
|
16571
|
62768
|
20688
|
67607
|
Sinha, 2008
|
3215
|
12086
|
24780
|
68077
|
Yao, 2016
|
664
|
8095
|
2627
|
10636
|
Kuntz, 2016
|
294
|
4455
|
1597
|
6680
|
Chan, 2014
|
53
|
183
|
191
|
219
|
Jarvis, 2012
|
468
|
1415
|
823
|
2095
|
Ho, 2010
|
318
|
4965
|
156
|
3243
|
Fernandez, 2018
|
60
|
118
|
46
|
118
|
Huang, 2012
|
1205
|
2089
|
1327
|
2216
|
Sims, 2012
|
493
|
2581
|
1189
|
3303
|
Kabir, 2010
|
1262
|
2805
|
1274
|
2670
|
Bolte, 2015
|
658
|
5143
|
896
|
6267
|
Jarvis, 2015
|
568
|
2043
|
1492
|
3638
|
Holiday, 2009
|
313
|
1580
|
328
|
1587
|
Akhtar, 2007
|
623
|
2272
|
668
|
2404
|
RE Model for all Studies.
ELEMENT -
PROBLEM:
1. Did the study clearly stated research question or problem?
LITERATURE SEARCH STRATEGY:
2. Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting primary studies clearly described?
3. What data bases were used by the reviewers?
4. What key words were included in the final search syntax?
SAMPLE:
5. What inclusion and Exclusion criteria were used?
6. If studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, did reviewers provide a rationale for the decision?
7. Was it reasonable to combine the selected studies?
8. Did at least two or more people do the appraisals for each study?
9. Was interrater agreement reported?
DATA ANALYSIS:
10. Were methods for pooling and integrating the data explained?
11. Was heterogeneity of effects discussed and dealt with appropriately?
12. Was the issue of publication bias discussed?
13. Were limitations of the meta-analysis discussed?
PART 2: Forrest Plot Creation Meta -Analysis Data Interpretation
For the part 2 of the Meta-Analysis Appraisal students will be asked to generate and interpret a forest plot using data from the Nanninga et al 2018 study. After generating the plot use the information obtained from the template and the plot to answer the questions below. See more details on how to generate the plot on the Meta-Analysis Template link in the module.
ELEMENT -
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
1. How many studies are included in the meta-analysis?
2. Which study reported the highest relative risk?
3. Which study reported the lowest relative risk?
4. Which study had the largest sample size?
5. Which study had the smallest sample size?
ANALYSIS RESULTS:
6. Which study had the highest weight?
7. Which study had the lowest weight?
8. What was the value of the heterogeneity?
9. Based on the heterogeneity, what is the value of the effect summary that should be reported?
10. What is the confidence interval for the effect summary?
INTERPRETATION: Based upon your forest plot and your analysis, how do you interpret the impact of the public smoking bans on children's exposure to second hand smoke? (ie interpret the effect summary)
Would you consider a change in practice as a result of the evidence from the results of the meta-analysis?
Attachment:- Assignment Files.rar