This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Fixed-effects versus random-effects models: fixed-effects assumes all studies are estimating the same thing and variation is sampling error. Random-effects assumes studies are estimating effects from different distributions and allows between-study variance. Choice matters if heterogeneity is high.
Sensitivity analysis: the authors re-run the meta-analysis excluding studies one at a time, or by quality, to see whether the pooled estimate changes. Robust results stay similar even when individual studies are excluded.
Worth separating two things that post #29 runs together.
Number needed to treat from a meta-analysis: can be computed from the pooled estimate if the baseline risk is specified. More interpretable than pooled relative effects.
Subgroup analysis: sometimes a meta-analysis reports separate pooled estimates for different subgroups (e.g., by baseline body mass index or by trial duration). Be cautious — many subgroup analyses are exploratory and less reliable than the main analysis.
Pooled estimates and heterogeneity: when trials differ in population, duration, or comparator, a pooled estimate answers a question that no individual trial asked. High heterogeneity means effects genuinely differ across studies. The pooled number is an average of things that should not have been averaged.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
On post #33 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Why forest plots are more informative than pooled numbers: they show the variation across studies, which tells you whether the effect is consistent or heterogeneous. A narrow confidence interval around a meaningless centre is less useful than a wider interval that shows real differences.
post #37 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Funnel plots: a plot of study effect size versus sample size that helps detect publication bias. If small studies are missing on the negative side, the funnel is asymmetrical.
I read post #37 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
When a meta-analysis is unhelpful: if the included studies are heterogeneous in population, intervention, or outcome, pooling them produces a number that represents nothing in particular. Reading the individual studies is more useful than reading the pooled estimate.
Picking up post #38: that is the part I would want checked first.
Publication bias: what did not get published? Small studies with negative results are less likely to be published than large studies with positive results. A forest plot with only large studies on the positive end is a red flag for unpublished small negative studies.
Coming back to post #40, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Fixed-effects versus random-effects models: fixed-effects assumes all studies are estimating the same thing and variation is sampling error. Random-effects assumes studies are estimating effects from different distributions and allows between-study variance. Choice matters if heterogeneity is high.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
This follows post #42 rather than contradicting it.
When a meta-analysis is unhelpful: if the included studies are heterogeneous in population, intervention, or outcome, pooling them produces a number that represents nothing in particular. Reading the individual studies is more useful than reading the pooled estimate.
Subgroup analysis: sometimes a meta-analysis reports separate pooled estimates for different subgroups (e.g., by baseline body mass index or by trial duration). Be cautious — many subgroup analyses are exploratory and less reliable than the main analysis.
Publication bias: what did not get published? Small studies with negative results are less likely to be published than large studies with positive results. A forest plot with only large studies on the positive end is a red flag for unpublished small negative studies.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Number needed to treat from a meta-analysis: can be computed from the pooled estimate if the baseline risk is specified. More interpretable than pooled relative effects.
Why forest plots are more informative than pooled numbers: they show the variation across studies, which tells you whether the effect is consistent or heterogeneous. A narrow confidence interval around a meaningless centre is less useful than a wider interval that shows real differences.
Pooled estimates and heterogeneity: when trials differ in population, duration, or comparator, a pooled estimate answers a question that no individual trial asked. High heterogeneity means effects genuinely differ across studies. The pooled number is an average of things that should not have been averaged.
Picking up post #51: that is the part I would want checked first.
Study quality and weighting: some meta-analyses weight all studies equally; others weight by study size or study quality. The choice affects the result and should be stated and justified.
Worth separating two things that post #51 runs together.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: a meta-analysis is only as good as its inclusion criteria. If the criteria are too broad, apples and oranges get pooled. If they are too narrow, the meta-analysis answers a overly specific question.
Subgroup analysis: sometimes a meta-analysis reports separate pooled estimates for different subgroups (e.g., by baseline body mass index or by trial duration). Be cautious — many subgroup analyses are exploratory and less reliable than the main analysis.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: a meta-analysis is only as good as its inclusion criteria. If the criteria are too broad, apples and oranges get pooled. If they are too narrow, the meta-analysis answers a overly specific question.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
On post #55 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
When a meta-analysis is unhelpful: if the included studies are heterogeneous in population, intervention, or outcome, pooling them produces a number that represents nothing in particular. Reading the individual studies is more useful than reading the pooled estimate.
post #59 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.