Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates

By D. G. Altman, J. Bland. British medical journal, 2003

2,207 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Oncology, Rheumatology, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/03d95f7ac7caa2226a7e43eef9d6cfd296cfcd39

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Surgery

Citations in the corpus

Mental health of college students during the COVID-19 epidemic in China (2020, positive): “The social support of participants was assessed via the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), which includes 12 items with response options ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree) (Altman and Bland, 2003).”
Association of Mediterranean diet with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2014, positive): “Heterogeneity across the sub-groups was calculated with Cochran’s Q test [24], and the comparison of risk estimates were made with an interaction test [25].”
Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration (2012, neutral): “First, a single test of interaction is required to rigorously assess whether effects are different in subgroups [95].”
Coffee consumption and health: umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple health outcomes (2017, neutral): “18 We constructed forest plots from the extracted and/or reanalysed data to display three categories of exposure for any health outcome (high versus low (or none), any (regular) versus none, and one extra cup a day (relative to none) in which that category of exposure was available.”
Elastography for the diagnosis of severity of fibrosis in chronic liver disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. (2011, neutral): “of the DOR ratio between the subgroups [11].”
Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians (2018, neutral): “21 This can provide statistical evidence of a difference, but whether this should be interpreted as clinically meaningful is further outlined below.”
Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms With Flow Diverters: A Meta-Analysis (2013, positive): “Subgroup interactions (ANCOVA) were conducted using an interaction test as described by Altman.(32) Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I(2) statistic.”
Quarterly Focus Issue: Prevention/OutcomeClinical Research: Cardiovascular RiskPrediction of Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality With Arterial Stiffness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2010, neutral): “Risk estimates between subgroups were compared with a test of interaction (35).”
White rice consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis and systematic review (2012, neutral): “14 We also fitted a fixed effects model to examine the between group heterogeneity and used the P value for heterogeneity to evaluate the interactions.”