Ondansetron

Diaphragmatic hernia

R analysis
id Study   Lib. in paper Exposition period    Study type 
 Control type 
 
Tags OR 95%CI x1/n1 x0/n0 no cases no exposed ROB Ref.
S2757
R3955		 Zambelli-Weiner (Unexposed control, NOS), 2019 Diaphragmatic hernia 1st trimester nested case control unexposed (general population or NOS) Adjustment: Yes 2.51 [1.19;5.31] 7/885   409/113,515 416 885
ref
S2756
R3695		 Parker, NBDPS study, 2018 Diaphragmatic hernia 1st trimester case control unexposed, sick Adjustment: Yes 1.50 [1.00;2.40] 23/276   435/6,933 458 276
ref
S2746
R3941		 Pasternak, 2013 Congenital diaphragmatic hernia 1st trimester population based cohort retrospective unexposed (general population or NOS) Adjustment: No 1.33 [0.05;32.76] C 0/1,233   1/4,932 1 1,233
ref
Total 3 studies 1.70 [1.17;2.48] 875 2,394
x1: number of endpoints among exposed, n1: number of exposed; x0: number of endpoints among non exposed, n0: number of non exposed; C: calculated odds ratio from numbers of events and effectives

Forest plot

StudyTE95% CIn casesn exposedweightROBABCDEF Zambelli-Weiner (Unexposed control, NOS), 2019Zambelli-Weiner, 2019 1 2.51[1.19; 5.31]41688525%ROB confusion: NAROB selection: NAROB classification: NAROB missing: NAROB mesure: NAROB reporting: NA Parker, NBDPS study, 2018Parker, NBDPS study, 2018 1.50[1.00; 2.40]45827673%ROB confusion: NAROB selection: NAROB classification: NAROB missing: NAROB mesure: NAROB reporting: NA Pasternak, 2013Pasternak, 2013 1.33[0.05; 32.76]11,2331%ROB confusion: NAROB selection: NAROB classification: NAROB missing: NAROB mesure: NAROB reporting: NA Total (3 studies) I2 = 0% 1.70[1.17; 2.48]8752,3940.510.01.0ROB: A: confusion, B: selection, C: classification, D: missing, E: measurement, F: reportinglow,moderate,serious,critical,unclear,

1: Unexposed control, NOS;

Sensitivity analysis

SubsetTE95% CIn casesn exposedkI2 Type of studies cohort studiescohort studies 1.33[0.05; 32.76]11,233 -NAPasternak, 2013 1 case control studiescase control studies 1.77[1.10; 2.83]8741,16126%NAZambelli-Weiner (Unexposed control, NOS), 2019 Parker, NBDPS study, 2018 2 Type of controls unexposed (disease free or unspecified)unexposed (disease free or unspecified) 2.43[1.17; 5.03]4172,1180%NAZambelli-Weiner (Unexposed control, NOS), 2019 Pasternak, 2013 2 unexposed, sickunexposed, sick 1.50[0.97; 2.32]458276 -NAParker, NBDPS study, 2018 1 Tags Adjustment   - No  - No 1.33[0.05; 32.76]11,233 -NAPasternak, 2013 1   - Yes  - Yes 1.77[1.10; 2.83]8741,16126%NAZambelli-Weiner (Unexposed control, NOS), 2019 Parker, NBDPS study, 2018 2 All studiesAll studies 1.70[1.17; 2.48]8752,3940%NAZambelli-Weiner (Unexposed control, NOS), 2019 Parker, NBDPS study, 2018 Pasternak, 2013 30.510.01.0

Publication bias and p-hacking diagnosis

funnel plot

Funnel plot not drawn. Less than 3 points.

Asymetry test p-value = NaN (by Egger's regression)

not enought points

p values plot

Funnel plot not drawn. Less than 3 points.

Sub-groups analysis using all included studies

excluded

Sub-groupsTE95% CIn casesn exposedkI2ROB type of controls unexposed controls (disease free or unspecified)unexposed controls (disease free or unspecified) 2.43[1.17; 5.03]4172,1180%NAZambelli-Weiner (Unexposed control, NOS), 2019 Pasternak, 2013 2 unexposed, sick controlsunexposed, sick controls 1.50[0.97; 2.32]458276 -NAParker, NBDPS study, 2018 10.510.01.0