Skip Navigation


Human Reproduction Update Advance Access originally published online on February 7, 2008
Human Reproduction Update 2008 14(3):289-291; doi:10.1093/humupd/dmm051
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
14/3/289-a    most recent
dmm051v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gelbaya, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Nardo, L. G.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Gelbaya, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Nardo, L. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Reply: ‘Is it time for meta-analysis?’

Tarek A. Gelbaya1, Maria Kyrgiou2 and Luciano G. Nardo1,3

1 Department of Reproductive Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, CMMC University Hospitals, Whitworth Park, Manchester M13 0JH, UK 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK

3 Correspondence address. Fax: +44-0161-224-0957; E-mail: luciano.nardo@cmmc.nhs.uk

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Sir,

In their letter, Dr Ruopp and co-authors question the statistical approach and the validity of our meta-analysis on the use of low-dose aspirin in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) (Gelbaya et al., 2007Go). They also go some way to suggest that we have reached a flawed interpretation of the results. Their argument is that random-effects models have an inherent loss of precision by introducing an in-between study variance and that random-effects model should only be used when the absence of inter-study heterogeneity can be assumed.

With fixed-effects models, it is assumed that there is a sole common effect estimates for all studies, i.e. the true effect of treatment, in both magnitude and . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?