\title{studies on the effectiveness of different rehydration solutions for the prevention of unscheduled intravenous infusion in children with diarrhoea}
\description{results from 12 trials examining the effectiveness of a reduced versus standard rehydration solution for the prevention of unscheduled intravenous infusion in children with diarrhoea.}
\bold{study} \tab \code{character} \tab trial name and year \cr
\bold{ai}    \tab \code{numeric}   \tab number of children requiring unscheduled intravenous infusion in the reduced rehydration solution group \cr
\bold{n1i}   \tab \code{numeric}   \tab number of children in the reduced rehydration solution group \cr
\bold{ci}    \tab \code{numeric}   \tab number of children requiring unscheduled intravenous infusion in the standard rehydration solution group \cr
\bold{n2i}   \tab \code{numeric}   \tab number of children in the standard rehydration solution group
the dataset includes the results from 12 randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of a reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution (total osmolarity <250 mmol/l with reduced sodium) with a standard who oral rehydration solution (sodium 90 mmol/l, glucose 111mmol/l, total osmolarity 311 mmol/l) for the prevention of unscheduled intravenous infusion in children with diarrhoea.
hahn, s., kim, y., & garner, p. (2001). reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution for treating dehydration due to diarrhoea in children: systematic review. \emph{british medical journal}, \bold{323}(7304), 81--85. \verb{https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7304.81}
### meta-analysis of (log) odds rations using the mantel-haenszel method
res <- rma.mh(measure="or", ai=ai, n1i=n1i, ci=ci, n2i=n2i, data=dat, digits=2, slab=study)
### forest plot (also show studies that were excluded from the analysis)
medicine, odds ratios, mantel-haenszel method

\title{studies comparing objective and subjective olfactory loss in covid-19 patients}
\description{results from 35 studies measuring olfactory loss in covid-19 patients using either objective or subjective measures.}
\bold{authorname}           \tab \code{character} \tab (first) author of study \cr
\bold{doi}                  \tab \code{character} \tab article doi number \cr
\bold{ni}                   \tab \code{numeric}   \tab number of covid-19 positive patients in the study \cr
\bold{xi}                   \tab \code{numeric}   \tab number of covid-19 positive patients in the study with olfactory loss \cr
\bold{percentolfactoryloss} \tab \code{numeric}   \tab percent of the sample with olfactory loss \cr
\bold{objectivity}          \tab \code{character} \tab objective or subjective measure used \cr
\bold{measured}             \tab \code{character} \tab outcome measure \cr
\bold{testtype}             \tab \code{character} \tab type of test used \cr
\bold{country}              \tab \code{character} \tab country where patients were treated \cr
\bold{patienttype}          \tab \code{character} \tab type of patient information and location where being treated
one of the symptoms of covid-19 infection is olfactory loss (loss of smell) either recently acquired anosmia (complete loss of smell) or hyposmia (partial loss of smell). one challenge to reaching this symptom is the wide range of reported prevalence for this symptom ranging from 5 percent to 98 percent. in this dataset studies were grouped into one of two groups based on the type of method used to measure smell loss (either subjective measures, such as self-reported smell loss, or objective measures using rated stimuli).
ramirez va , hannum me, lipson sj, herriman rd, toskala ak, lin c, joseph pv, reed dr. 2020. covid-19 smell loss prevalence tracker. available from: \verb{https://vicente-ramirez.shinyapps.io/covid19_olfactory_dashboard/} and \verb{https://github.com/vramirez4/olfactoryloss} (accessed august 11, 2021)
hannum, m. e., ramirez, v. a., lipson, s. j., herriman, r. d., toskala, a. k., lin, c., joseph, p. v., & reed, d. r. (2020). objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in covid-19 positive patients compared to subjective methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. \emph{chemical senses}, \bold{45}(9), 865--874. \verb{https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjaa064}
# split data into objective and subjective datasets
res_objective <- rma(yi, vi, data=dat_objective)
res_subjective <- rma(yi, vi, data=dat_subjective)