The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
A correction has been published: N Engl J Med 1999;341(8):624.

Correspondence
PreviousPrevious
Volume 341:131 July 8, 1999 Number 2
NextNext

False False Positive Rates

Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
-Purchase this article

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-Related Article
-Related Article
by LeLorier, J.
-PubMed Citation
To the Editor: The report by LeLorier et al. (Aug. 21, 1997, issue) indicated that the results of meta-analyses frequently conflict with those of large randomized, controlled trials.1 An editorial suggested that some of these discrepancies may arise when investigators, editors, and reviewers do not undertake rigorous technical reviews of the data from the studies combined in the meta-analyses.2

Meta-analyses often examine false positive rates — which would be calculated as b÷(b+d) in Figure 1 — because these rates permit data from different studies to be combined even if the data were obtained with the use of different criteria for . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.