How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial

Sara Balduzzi, Gerta Rücker, Guido Schwarzer

This vignette provides up-to-date commands for the analyses in “How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a
practical tutorial”, Evid Based Ment Health (Balduzzi, Rücker, and Schwarzer 2019).

Install R packages
install.packages(c("meta", "metasens"))

Make R packages available

library(meta)
#> Loading required package: metadat
#> Loading 'meta' package (version 7.0-0).
#> Type 'help(meta)' for a brief overview.
#> Readers of 'Meta-Analysis with R (Use R!)' should install
#> older version of 'meta' package: https://tinyurl.com/dt4y5drs

library(metasens)

Note, a similar message would be printed for R package metasens. However, this vignette does not actually
load metasens as it might not be installed in addition to meta.

Default settings for R session

Print results with two significant digits and use Paule-Mandel estimator for between-study variance.
settings.meta(digits = 2, method.tau = "PM")

Note, in the publication, argument ‘method.tau’ was used in R function metabin(). Here, we set the
Paule-Mandel method as the default for any meta-analysis conducted in the current R session.

Import the dataset

joy = read.csv("Joy2006.txt")
# Add new variable: miss
joy$miss = ifelse((joy$drop.h + joy$drop.p) == 0,
"Without missing data", "With missing data")
head(joy)
#> author year resp.h fail.h drop.h resp.p fail.p drop.p miss
#> 1 Arvanitis 1997 25 25 2 18 33 0 With missing data
#> 2 Beasley 1996 29 18 22 20 14 34 With missing data
#> 3 Bechelli 1983 12 17 1 2 28 1 With missing data
#> 4 Borison 1992 3 9 0 0 12 0 Without missing data
#> 5 Chouinard 1993 10 11 0 3 19 0 Without missing data
#> 6 Durost 1964 11 8 0 1 14 0 Without missing data

1
str(joy)
#> 'data.frame': 17 obs. of 9 variables:
#> $ author: chr "Arvanitis" "Beasley" "Bechelli" "Borison" ...
#> $ year : int 1997 1996 1983 1992 1993 1964 1962 1974 1994 1982 ...
#> $ resp.h: int 25 29 12 3 10 11 7 8 19 1 ...
#> $ fail.h: int 25 18 17 9 11 8 18 9 45 9 ...
#> $ drop.h: int 2 22 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 ...
#> $ resp.p: int 18 20 2 0 3 1 4 3 14 0 ...
#> $ fail.p: int 33 14 28 12 19 14 21 10 50 10 ...
#> $ drop.p: int 0 34 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 ...
#> $ miss : chr "With missing data" "With missing data" "With missing data" "Without missing data" ..

Section ‘Fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis’

m.publ = metabin(resp.h, resp.h + fail.h, resp.p, resp.p + fail.p,
data = joy, studlab = paste0(author, " (", year, ")"),
label.e = "Haloperidol", label.c = "Placebo",
label.left = "Favours placebo", label.right = "Favours haloperidol")

Print results of meta-analysis (Figure 1).

summary(m.publ)
#> RR 95%-CI %W(common) %W(random)
#> Arvanitis (1997) 1.42 [0.89; 2.25] 21.1 14.1
#> Beasley (1996) 1.05 [0.73; 1.50] 27.5 15.6
#> Bechelli (1983) 6.21 [1.52; 25.35] 2.3 4.7
#> Borison (1992) 7.00 [0.40; 121.94] 0.6 1.4
#> Chouinard (1993) 3.49 [1.11; 10.95] 3.5 6.3
#> Durost (1964) 8.68 [1.26; 59.95] 1.3 2.8
#> Garry (1962) 1.75 [0.58; 5.24] 4.7 6.7
#> Howard (1974) 2.04 [0.67; 6.21] 4.0 6.6
#> Marder (1994) 1.36 [0.75; 2.47] 16.6 12.2
#> Nishikawa (1982) 3.00 [0.14; 65.55] 0.6 1.2
#> Nishikawa (1984) 9.00 [0.57; 142.29] 0.8 1.5
#> Reschke (1974) 3.79 [1.06; 13.60] 3.4 5.4
#> Selman (1976) 1.48 [0.94; 2.35] 10.3 14.1
#> Serafetinides (1972) 8.38 [0.50; 141.44] 0.6 1.4
#> Simpson (1967) 2.27 [0.12; 41.77] 0.8 1.4
#> Spencer (1992) 11.00 [1.67; 72.40] 1.2 3.0
#> Vichaiya (1971) 19.00 [1.16; 311.71] 0.6 1.5
#>
#> Number of studies: k = 17
#> Number of observations: o = 818 (o.e = 446, o.c = 372)
#> Number of events: e = 274
#>
#> RR 95%-CI z p-value
#> Common effect model 2.09 [1.69; 2.59] 6.71 < 0.0001
#> Random effects model 2.15 [1.51; 3.06] 4.23 < 0.0001
#>
#> Quantifying heterogeneity:
#> tauˆ2 = 0.1754 [0.0000; 1.0088]; tau = 0.4188 [0.0000; 1.0044]
#> Iˆ2 = 41.3% [0.0%; 67.0%]; H = 1.30 [1.00; 1.74]
#>

2
#> Test of heterogeneity:
#> Q d.f. p-value
#> 27.24 16 0.0388
#>
#> Details on meta-analytical method:
#> - Mantel-Haenszel method (common effect model)
#> - Inverse variance method (random effects model)
#> - Paule-Mandel estimator for tauˆ2
#> - Q-Profile method for confidence interval of tauˆ2 and tau
#> - Continuity correction of 0.5 in studies with zero cell frequencies

Same printout (result not shown)

print(summary(m.publ))

Create Figure 2 (file ‘figure2.pdf’).

forest(m.publ, sortvar = year, prediction = TRUE,
file = "figure2.pdf", width = 10)

Haloperidol Placebo Weight Weight

Study Events Total Events Total Risk Ratio RR 95%−CI (common) (random)

Garry (1962) 7 25 4 25 1.75 [0.58; 5.24] 4.7% 6.7%

Durost (1964) 11 19 1 15 8.68 [1.26; 59.95] 1.3% 2.8%
Simpson (1967) 2 16 0 7 2.27 [0.12; 41.77] 0.8% 1.4%
Vichaiya (1971) 9 29 0 29 19.00 [1.16; 311.71] 0.6% 1.5%
Serafetinides (1972) 4 14 0 13 8.38 [0.50; 141.44] 0.6% 1.4%
Howard (1974) 8 17 3 13 2.04 [0.67; 6.21] 4.0% 6.6%
Reschke (1974) 20 29 2 11 3.79 [1.06; 13.60] 3.4% 5.4%
Selman (1976) 17 18 7 11 1.48 [0.94; 2.35] 10.3% 14.1%
Nishikawa (1982) 1 10 0 10 3.00 [0.14; 65.55] 0.6% 1.2%
Bechelli (1983) 12 29 2 30 6.21 [1.52; 25.35] 2.3% 4.7%
Nishikawa (1984) 11 34 0 13 9.00 [0.57; 142.29] 0.8% 1.5%
Borison (1992) 3 12 0 12 7.00 [0.40; 121.94] 0.6% 1.4%
Spencer (1992) 11 12 1 12 11.00 [1.67; 72.40] 1.2% 3.0%
Chouinard (1993) 10 21 3 22 3.49 [1.11; 10.95] 3.5% 6.3%
Marder (1994) 19 64 14 64 1.36 [0.75; 2.47] 16.6% 12.2%
Beasley (1996) 29 47 20 34 1.05 [0.73; 1.50] 27.5% 15.6%
Arvanitis (1997) 25 50 18 51 1.42 [0.89; 2.25] 21.1% 14.1%

Common effect model 446 372 2.09 [1.69; 2.59] 100.0% −−

Random effects model 2.15 [1.51; 3.06] −− 100.0%
Prediction interval [0.81; 5.67]
Heterogeneity: I 2 = 41%, τ2 = 0.1754, p = 0.04
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Favours placebo Favours haloperidol

Section ‘Assessing the impact of missing outcome data’

Subgroup analysis of studies with and without missing data

m.publ.sub = update(m.publ, subgroup = miss, print.subgroup.name = FALSE)

m.publ.sub
#> Number of studies: k = 17
#> Number of observations: o = 818 (o.e = 446, o.c = 372)
#> Number of events: e = 274
#>
#> RR 95%-CI z p-value
#> Common effect model 2.09 [1.69; 2.59] 6.71 < 0.0001
#> Random effects model 2.15 [1.51; 3.06] 4.23 < 0.0001

3
#>
#> Quantifying heterogeneity:
#> tauˆ2 = 0.1754 [0.0000; 1.0088]; tau = 0.4188 [0.0000; 1.0044]
#> Iˆ2 = 41.3% [0.0%; 67.0%]; H = 1.30 [1.00; 1.74]
#>
#> Test of heterogeneity:
#> Q d.f. p-value
#> 27.24 16 0.0388
#>
#> Results for subgroups (common effect model):
#> k RR 95%-CI Q Iˆ2
#> With missing data 10 1.70 [1.35; 2.14] 13.73 34.4%
#> Without missing data 7 4.36 [2.45; 7.77] 3.35 0.0%
#>
#> Test for subgroup differences (common effect model):
#> Q d.f. p-value
#> Between groups 8.82 1 0.0030
#>
#> Results for subgroups (random effects model):
#> k RR 95%-CI tauˆ2 tau
#> With missing data 10 1.71 [1.13; 2.59] 0.1785 0.4224
#> Without missing data 7 3.80 [2.13; 6.80] 0 0
#>
#> Test for subgroup differences (random effects model):
#> Q d.f. p-value
#> Between groups 4.80 1 0.0285
#>
#> Details on meta-analytical method:
#> - Mantel-Haenszel method (common effect model)
#> - Inverse variance method (random effects model)
#> - Paule-Mandel estimator for tauˆ2
#> - Q-Profile method for confidence interval of tauˆ2 and tau
#> - Continuity correction of 0.5 in studies with zero cell frequencies

Create Figure 3 (file ‘figure3.pdf’).

forest(m.publ.sub, sortvar = year,
xlim = c(0.1, 100), at = c(0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30, 100),
test.subgroup.common = FALSE,
label.test.subgroup.random = "Test for subgroup differences:",
file = "figure3.pdf", width = 10)

4
 Haloperidol Placebo Weight Weight
Study Events Total Events Total Risk Ratio RR 95%−CI (common) (random)

With missing data

Garry (1962) 7 25 4 25 1.75 [0.58; 5.24] 4.7% 6.7%
Simpson (1967) 2 16 0 7 2.27 [0.12; 41.77] 0.8% 1.4%
Vichaiya (1971) 9 29 0 29 19.00 [1.16; 311.71] 0.6% 1.5%
Serafetinides (1972) 4 14 0 13 8.38 [0.50; 141.44] 0.6% 1.4%
Selman (1976) 17 18 7 11 1.48 [0.94; 2.35] 10.3% 14.1%
Bechelli (1983) 12 29 2 30 6.21 [1.52; 25.35] 2.3% 4.7%
Nishikawa (1984) 11 34 0 13 9.00 [0.57; 142.29] 0.8% 1.5%
Marder (1994) 19 64 14 64 1.36 [0.75; 2.47] 16.6% 12.2%
Beasley (1996) 29 47 20 34 1.05 [0.73; 1.50] 27.5% 15.6%
Arvanitis (1997) 25 50 18 51 1.42 [0.89; 2.25] 21.1% 14.1%
Common effect model 326 277 1.70 [1.35; 2.14] 85.4% −−
Random effects model 1.71 [1.13; 2.59] −− 73.2%
Heterogeneity: I 2 = 34%, τ2 = 0.1785, p = 0.13

Without missing data

Durost (1964) 11 19 1 15 8.68 [1.26; 59.95] 1.3% 2.8%
Howard (1974) 8 17 3 13 2.04 [0.67; 6.21] 4.0% 6.6%
Reschke (1974) 20 29 2 11 3.79 [1.06; 13.60] 3.4% 5.4%
Nishikawa (1982) 1 10 0 10 3.00 [0.14; 65.55] 0.6% 1.2%
Borison (1992) 3 12 0 12 7.00 [0.40; 121.94] 0.6% 1.4%
Spencer (1992) 11 12 1 12 11.00 [1.67; 72.40] 1.2% 3.0%
Chouinard (1993) 10 21 3 22 3.49 [1.11; 10.95] 3.5% 6.3%
Common effect model 120 95 4.36 [2.45; 7.77] 14.6% −−
Random effects model 3.80 [2.13; 6.80] −− 26.8%
Heterogeneity: I 2 = 0%, τ2 = 0, p = 0.76

Common effect model 446 372 2.09 [1.69; 2.59] 100.0% −−

Random effects model 2.15 [1.51; 3.06] −− 100.0%
Heterogeneity: I 2 = 41%, τ2 = 0.1754, p = 0.04
Test for subgroup differences:χ21 = 4.80, df = 1 (p = 0.03) 0.1 0.3 1 3 10 30 100
Favours placebo Favours haloperidol

Use imputation methods

# Impute as no events (ICA-0) - default

mmiss.0 = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p)
# Impute as events (ICA-1)
mmiss.1 = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "1")
# Observed risk in control group (ICA-pc)
mmiss.pc = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "pc")
# Observed risk in experimental group (ICA-pe)
mmiss.pe = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "pe")
# Observed group-specific risks (ICA-p)
mmiss.p = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "p")
# Best-case scenario (ICA-b)
mmiss.b = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "b", small.values = "bad")
# Worst-case scenario (ICA-w)
mmiss.w = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "w", small.values = "bad")
# Gamble-Hollis method
mmiss.gh = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "GH")
# IMOR.e = 2 and IMOR.c = 2 (same as available case analysis)
mmiss.imor2 = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "IMOR", IMOR.e = 2)
# IMOR.e = 0.5 and IMOR.c = 0.5
mmiss.imor0.5 = metamiss(m.publ, drop.h, drop.p, method = "IMOR", IMOR.e = 0.5)

Summarise results using R function metabind().

5
meths = c("Available case analysis (ACA)",
"Impute no events (ICA-0)", "Impute events (ICA-1)",
"Observed risk in control group (ICA-pc)",
"Observed risk in experimental group (ICA-pe)",
"Observed group-specific risks (ICA-p)",
"Best-case scenario (ICA-b)", "Worst-case scenario (ICA-w)",
"Gamble-Hollis analysis",
"IMOR.e = 2, IMOR.c = 2", "IMOR.e = 0.5, IMOR.c = 0.5")
# Use inverse-variance method for pooling (which is used for
# imputation methods)
m.publ.iv = update(m.publ, method = "Inverse")
# Combine results (random effects)
mbr = metabind(m.publ.iv,
mmiss.0, mmiss.1,
mmiss.pc, mmiss.pe, mmiss.p,
mmiss.b, mmiss.w, mmiss.gh,
mmiss.imor2, mmiss.imor0.5,
name = meths, pooled = "random")

Create Figure 4 (file ‘figure4.pdf’).

forest(mbr, xlim = c(0.5, 4),
leftcols = c("studlab", "I2.w", "tau2.w", "Q.w", "pval.Q.w"),
leftlab = c("Meta-Analysis Method", "I2", "Tau2", "Q", "P-value"),
type.study = "diamond",
digits.addcols = c(4, 2, 2, 2), just.addcols = "right",
file = "figure4.pdf", width = 10)

Random Effects Model

Meta−Analysis Method I2 Tau2 Q P−value (Risk Ratio) RR 95%−CI

Available case analysis (ACA) 0.4127 0.18 27.24 0.04 2.15 [1.51; 3.06]
Impute no events (ICA−0) 0.2511 0.09 21.36 0.16 2.22 [1.63; 3.04]
Impute events (ICA−1) 0.6006 0.23 40.06 0.00 1.99 [1.39; 2.84]
Observed risk in control group (ICA−pc) 0.4149 0.18 27.34 0.04 2.11 [1.47; 3.02]
Observed risk in experimental group (ICA−pe) 0.4623 0.18 29.76 0.02 1.99 [1.40; 2.83]
Observed group−specific risks (ICA−p) 0.4081 0.17 27.03 0.04 2.13 [1.50; 3.03]
Best−case scenario (ICA−b) 0.2541 0.06 21.45 0.16 2.64 [1.98; 3.51]
Worst−case scenario (ICA−w) 0.7412 0.43 61.83 0.00 1.90 [1.22; 2.94]
Gamble−Hollis analysis 0.1649 0.07 19.16 0.26 2.25 [1.59; 3.18]
IMOR.e = 2, IMOR.c = 2 0.4768 0.20 30.58 0.02 2.11 [1.47; 3.03]
IMOR.e = 0.5, IMOR.c = 0.5 0.3444 0.14 24.40 0.08 2.16 [1.54; 3.03]

0.5 1 2 4
Favours placebo Favours haloperidol

6
Section ‘Assessing and accounting for small-study effects’
Funnel plot

funnel(m.publ)

Harbord’s score test for funnel plot asymmetry

metabias(m.publ, method.bias = "score")

#> Linear regression test of funnel plot asymmetry
#>
#> Test result: t = 4.56, df = 15, p-value = 0.0004
#> Bias estimate: 2.21 (SE = 0.4853)
#>
#> Details:
#> - multiplicative residual heterogeneity variance (tauˆ2 = 1.0948)
#> - predictor: standard error of score
#> - weight: inverse variance of score
#> - reference: Harbord et al. (2006), Stat Med

Trim-and-fill method

tf.publ = trimfill(m.publ)
tf.publ
#> Number of studies: k = 26 (with 9 added studies)
#> Number of observations: o = 1174 (o.e = 645, o.c = 529)
#> Number of events: e = 374
#>
#> RR 95%-CI z p-value
#> Random effects model 1.40 [0.83; 2.38] 1.26 0.2063
#>
#> Quantifying heterogeneity:
#> tauˆ2 = 1.0983 [0.2929; 3.1894]; tau = 1.0480 [0.5412; 1.7859]
#> Iˆ2 = 56.2% [32.1%; 71.8%]; H = 1.51 [1.21; 1.88]
#>
#> Test of heterogeneity:
#> Q d.f. p-value
#> 57.13 25 0.0003
#>
#> Details on meta-analytical method:
#> - Inverse variance method
#> - Paule-Mandel estimator for tauˆ2
#> - Q-Profile method for confidence interval of tauˆ2 and tau
#> - Trim-and-fill method to adjust for funnel plot asymmetry (L-estimator)

summary(tf.publ)
#> RR 95%-CI %W(random)
#> Arvanitis (1997) 1.42 [0.89; 2.25] 6.2
#> Beasley (1996) 1.05 [0.73; 1.50] 6.4
#> Bechelli (1983) 6.21 [1.52; 25.35] 4.5
#> Borison (1992) 7.00 [0.40; 121.94] 2.2
#> Chouinard (1993) 3.49 [1.11; 10.95] 5.0
#> Durost (1964) 8.68 [1.26; 59.95] 3.5
#> Garry (1962) 1.75 [0.58; 5.24] 5.1

7
#> Howard (1974) 2.04 [0.67; 6.21] 5.1
#> Marder (1994) 1.36 [0.75; 2.47] 6.0
#> Nishikawa (1982) 3.00 [0.14; 65.55] 2.0
#> Nishikawa (1984) 9.00 [0.57; 142.29] 2.3
#> Reschke (1974) 3.79 [1.06; 13.60] 4.7
#> Selman (1976) 1.48 [0.94; 2.35] 6.2
#> Serafetinides (1972) 8.38 [0.50; 141.44] 2.3
#> Simpson (1967) 2.27 [0.12; 41.77] 2.2
#> Spencer (1992) 11.00 [1.67; 72.40] 3.6
#> Vichaiya (1971) 19.00 [1.16; 311.71] 2.3
#> Filled: Chouinard (1993) 0.50 [0.16; 1.55] 5.0
#> Filled: Reschke (1974) 0.46 [0.13; 1.64] 4.7
#> Filled: Bechelli (1983) 0.28 [0.07; 1.14] 4.5
#> Filled: Borison (1992) 0.25 [0.01; 4.31] 2.2
#> Filled: Serafetinides (1972) 0.21 [0.01; 3.49] 2.3
#> Filled: Durost (1964) 0.20 [0.03; 1.38] 3.5
#> Filled: Nishikawa (1984) 0.19 [0.01; 3.04] 2.3
#> Filled: Spencer (1992) 0.16 [0.02; 1.04] 3.6
#> Filled: Vichaiya (1971) 0.09 [0.01; 1.49] 2.3
#>
#> Number of studies: k = 26 (with 9 added studies)
#> Number of observations: o = 1174 (o.e = 645, o.c = 529)
#> Number of events: e = 374
#>
#> RR 95%-CI z p-value
#> Random effects model 1.40 [0.83; 2.38] 1.26 0.2063
#>
#> Quantifying heterogeneity:
#> tauˆ2 = 1.0983 [0.2929; 3.1894]; tau = 1.0480 [0.5412; 1.7859]
#> Iˆ2 = 56.2% [32.1%; 71.8%]; H = 1.51 [1.21; 1.88]
#>
#> Test of heterogeneity:
#> Q d.f. p-value
#> 57.13 25 0.0003
#>
#> Details on meta-analytical method:
#> - Inverse variance method
#> - Paule-Mandel estimator for tauˆ2
#> - Q-Profile method for confidence interval of tauˆ2 and tau
#> - Trim-and-fill method to adjust for funnel plot asymmetry (L-estimator)

funnel(tf.publ)

Limit meta-analysis

l1.publ = limitmeta(m.publ)

Note, the printout for the limit meta-analysis is not shown in this vignette as the installation of R package
metasens is optional.
l1.publ

Create Figure 5 (file ‘figure5.pdf’).

8
pdf("figure5.pdf", width = 10, height = 10)
#
par(mfrow = c(2, 2), pty = "s",
oma = c(0, 0, 0, 0), mar = c(4.1, 3.1, 2.1, 1.1))
#
funnel(m.publ, xlim = c(0.05, 50), axes = FALSE)
axis(1, at = c(0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50))
axis(2, at = c(0, 0.5, 1, 1.5))
box()
title(main = "Panel A: Funnel plot", adj = 0)
#
funnel(m.publ, xlim = c(0.05, 50), axes = FALSE,
contour.levels = c(0.9, 0.95, 0.99),
col.contour = c("darkgray", "gray", "lightgray"))
legend("topright",
c("p < 1%", "1% < p < 5%", "5% < p < 10%", "p > 10%"),
fill = c("lightgray", "gray", "darkgray", "white"),
border = "white", bg = "white")
axis(1, at = c(0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50))
axis(2, at = c(0, 0.5, 1, 1.5))
box()
title(main = "Panel B: Contour-enhanced funnel plot", adj = 0)
#
funnel(tf.publ, xlim = c(0.05, 50), axes = FALSE)
axis(1, at = c(0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50))
axis(2, at = c(0, 0.5, 1, 1.5))
box()
title(main = "Panel C: Trim-and-fill method", adj = 0)
#
funnel(l1.publ, xlim = c(0.05, 50), axes = FALSE,
col.line = 8, lwd.line = 3)
axis(1, at = c(0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50))
axis(2, at = c(0, 0.5, 1, 1.5))
box()
title(main = "Panel D: Limit meta-analysis", adj = 0)
#
dev.off()

9
 Panel A: Funnel plot Panel B: Contour−enhanced funnel plot
0.0

0.0
p < 1%
1% < p < 5%
5% < p < 10%
p > 10%
0.5

0.5
Standard Error

Standard Error
1.0

1.0
1.5

1.5
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 50.0

Risk Ratio Risk Ratio

Panel C: Trim−and−fill method Panel D: Limit meta−analysis

0.0

0.0
0.5

0.5
Standard Error

Standard Error
1.0

1.0
1.5

1.5

0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 50.0

Risk Ratio Risk Ratio

References
Balduzzi, Sara, Gerta Rücker, and Guido Schwarzer. 2019. “How to Perform a Meta-Analysis with R: A
Practical Tutorial.” Evidence-Based Mental Health 22 (4): 153–60. doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117.

10