Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 31, 2026.

Meta‐analysis of skewed data: Combining results reported on log‐transformed or raw scales

Julian P. T. Higgins, Ian R. White, Judith Anzures‐Cabrera

Statistics in Medicine · 2008

doi:10.1002/sim.3427

Abstract

When literature‐based meta‐analyses involve outcomes with skewed distributions, the best available data can sometimes be a mixture of results presented on the raw scale and results presented on the logarithmic scale. We review and develop methods for transforming between these results for two‐group studies, such as clinical trials and prospective or cross‐sectional epidemiological studies. These allow meta‐analyses to be conducted using all studies and on a common scale. The methods can also be used to produce a meta‐analysis of ratios of geometric means when skewed data are reported on the raw scale for every study. We compare three methods, two of which have alternative standard error formulae, in an application and in a series of simulation studies. We conclude that an approach based on a log‐normal assumption for the raw data is reasonably robust to different true distributions; and we provide new standard error approximations for this method. An assumption can be made that the standard deviations in the two groups are equal. This increases precision of the estimates, but if incorrect can lead to very misleading results. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 9

  1. 1.

    Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials. 2002.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    Keene ON. The log transformation is special. Statistics in Medicine. 1995;14:811-819.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.4780140810

  3. 3.

    Whitehead A, Bailey AJ, Elbourne D. Combining summaries of binary outcomes with those of continuous outcomes in a meta-analysis. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics. 1999;9:1-16.

    Not in our library10.1081/bip-100100997

  4. 4.

    Sagoo GS, Tatt I, Salanti G, Butterworth AS, Sarwar N, van Maarle M, Jukema JW, Wiman B, Kastelein JJP, Bennet AM, de Faire U, Danesh J, Higgins JPT. Seven lipoprotein lipase gene polymorphisms, lipid fractions and coronary disease: a HuGE association review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2008.

    Not in our library10.1093/aje/kwn235

  5. 5.

    Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology. 1999;80:1150-1156.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    Harris RJ, Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Metan: fixed and random effects meta-analysis. The Stata Journal. 2008;8:3-28.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2 [Computer program]. 2005.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Shen H, Brown LD, Zhi H. Efficient estimation of log-normal means with application to pharmokinetic data. Statistics in Medicine. 2006;25:3023-3038.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.2456

Cited by papers we hold 10

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.