P. Moreira, Y. Bizzoni, K. Nielbo, I. Lassen, and M. Thomsen. Proceedings of the The 5th Workshop on Narrative Understanding, page 25--35. Toronto, Canada, Association for Computational Linguistics, (July 2023)
J. Neyeloff, S. Fuchs, and L. Moreira. BMC research notes, (January 2012)Metaanàlisi; Presentació de dades; Forest plot; Excel<br/><br/><u>Rebecca Holman2015 Dec 29 09:34 a.m.</u> <br/>A clinical researcher asked me for help in using the <u>Additional file 1: Meta-analyses and forest plots in MS Excel</u> provided by the authors of this paper. The file had produced a strange result for this researcher's meta analysis. My concern is around step 8 of "Steps in analyzing data and producing a forest plot". The authors definition of I2 is slightly different to that presented previously (see for example <u>Higgins JP, 2003</u>). The authors of the current manuscript do not place a lower bound of 0% on the value of I2 . Hence, in some meta-analysis data sets, the additional file can result in a value of I2 of less than 0%. In addition, the authors have not placed a lower bound of 0 on the value of Q-(k-1) when calculating v in step 9B "Random effects model". In some meta-analysis data sets, this can lead to negative values of v (cell M16 in the additional file). This can lead to incorrect results for a random effects based meta-analysis. When viewed in conjunction with <u>previous comments on this paper</u>, I feel that researchers should exercise caution when using the formulas in or additional Excel file to this paper to perform calculations or obtain figures for a meta-analysis..