|
Decisions of the 8 reviewers based on the 6 systematic reviews with meta-analyses presented to them. |
||||||
| # RCTS |
1 |
1–3 |
1–5 |
1–10 |
1–20 |
1–23 |
| N |
111 |
415 |
597 |
3685 |
63047 |
69505 |
| Fixed OR |
N/a |
0.40 (0.19–0.83) |
0.40 (0.28–0.61) |
0.64 (0.52–0.79) |
1.02 (0.96–1.08) |
1.01 (0.96–1.07) |
| Rand OR |
N/a |
0.40 (0.18–0.86) |
0.38 (0.21–0.66) |
0.66 (0.53–0.81) |
0.65 (0.48–0.87) |
0.75 (0.61–0.92) |
| I2 |
N/a |
0% |
0% |
21% |
59% |
59% |
| I believe magnesium has now been shown to be beneficial for patients during the post-MI period |
||||||
| (C) |
Disagree |
Unsure |
Unsure |
Disagree |
Disagree |
Disagree |
| (C) |
Strongly Disagree |
Unsure |
Unsure |
Unsure |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
| (P) |
Strongly Disagree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
| (P) |
Agree |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
| (P) |
Strongly Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Unsure |
Agree |
Agree |
| (P) |
Unsure |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
| (NP) |
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Disagree |
Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
| (N) |
Unsure |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
| I believe magnesium will eventually be shown to be beneficial for patients during the post-MI period |
||||||
| (C) |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Unsure |
Disagree |
| (C) |
Unsure |
Unsure |
Unsure |
Unsure |
Strongly Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
| (P) |
Unsure |
Agree |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
| (P) |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
| (P) |
Strongly Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Unsure |
Agree |
Agree |
| (P) |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
| (NP) |
Unsure |
Unsure |
Unsure |
Agree |
Unsure |
Disagree |
| (N) |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
Agree |
| I recommend that magnesium therapy be used in patients during the post-MI period |
||||||
| (C) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| (C) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| (P) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| (P) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| (P) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| (P) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| (NP) |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
| (N) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
C: cardiologist, P: other physician, NP: non-practicing physician, N: non-physician Each column contains the answers from different meta-analyses based on the number of randomized trials provided (top row). The total number of subjects in each of the meta-analyses is shown in the second row; the overall fixed effects odds ratio (OR) and random effects OR shown to the reviewers are given in rows 3 and 4 (the first trial only examined infarct size and there is no OR for mortality); and the I2 value for heterogeneity is shown in row 5. There were three errors that were discovered after some reviewers had answered questions. The differences in the overall effect estimates were relatively minor and would not be expected to alter the responses by our reviewers. To remain transparent, we provide the numbers provided to the reviewers in this table, and the corrected numbers in Figure 1. The results for each question asked are shown in the subsequent rows. The choices for the first two questions were strongly disagree to strongly agree, and the choices for the third question were yes or no. In addition to the range of interpretations for any one meta-analysis, reviewer 3 moved from unsure to strongly disagree over the 6 meta-analyses for the second question whereas reviewer 7 moved in the opposite direction from strongly disagree to agree. | ||||||
Shrier et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2008 8:19 doi:10.1186/1472-6947-8-19 |
||||||