Evidence · Meta-analyses

About the Meta-analyses category

Evidence › Meta-analyses meta-analysis heterogeneity publication bias

Pinned Wiki

s.leclercTL4 Moderator19 Feb 2025#1

Community wiki post. Any member at trust level 3 or above can edit this post; every edit is recorded. Last edited by hana.sato on 6 Aug 2025.

26 Apr 2025 — s.leclerc: Removed a claim that the cited source did not support.
10 Aug 2025 — mira.patel: Replaced an unsourced figure with the published one and cited it.
6 Aug 2025 — hana.sato: Added the worked example and a unit label to the table header.

Editors: s.leclerc, mira.patel, hana.sato

Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

Pooled estimates, heterogeneity, publication bias, and when pooling was a mistake.

This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a note. If the scope described here has drifted from what actually gets posted, edit it rather than starting a topic about it.

What belongs here

Questions specific to meta-analyses, with the units and the context stated.
Reports and datasets, with the collection method stated.
Disagreement about the substance, conducted in public.

What belongs elsewhere

Anything urgent belongs in Safety, immediately, and not here.
Anything about how this site works belongs in Meta.
Requests for a maintained page belong in Wiki requests.

Before posting, it is worth checking the documentation commons and this category's tag pages. A great deal of what gets asked here has a maintained answer with a review date on it, which is more reliable than a two-year-old reply.

0 likes 17mo

dr_okonkwoTL4 Moderator3 Apr 2025#2

Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

Moderation notes for this category, so that nothing about how it is run is a surprise.

Topics get moved into and out of here regularly. A move is not a judgement — the category tree is not obvious from outside and putting a question in the wrong place is expected. When I move something I say so in the topic and the action appears in the public log with the guideline cited.

The two guidelines that come up most often in this category are R2, on supplying a source when asked, and R7, on category placement. Neither is used punitively.

0 likes 16mo

eire_readerTL2Regional · IE3 May 2025#3

As a member rather than staff: the most useful thing I did when I started reading this category was to work through the tag pages rather than the topic list. The topic list shows you what is recent. The tags show you what is settled.

8 likes 15mo

z.szaboTL2 Moderator30 May 2025#4

Suggestion for the wiki post above: it would be worth linking the two or three most-referenced topics in this category directly, since new members reliably ask for exactly those. Happy to make the edit myself if nobody objects, with a revision note.

19 likes 14mo

integrator_traceTL2Member24 Jun 2025#5

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.

0 likes 13mo

This topic was referenced in

Publication bias detection and its low power — does this still hold?Evidence › Meta-analyses · 28 replies

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Risk-of-bias tools and the judgement they conceal — does this still hold? Evidence › Meta-analyses heterogeneity risk of bias effect size publication bias Solved Risk-of-bias tools and the judgement they conceal — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Comparing SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021)…	+26	30	5.8k	23h
A pooled estimate that changed when one trial was added Evidence › Meta-analyses meta-analysis publication bias effect size Solved A pooled estimate that changed when one trial was added — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before posting; the…	+24	28	3.5k	2d
Random versus fixed effects: choosing rather than defaulting Evidence › Meta-analyses effect size publication bias risk of bias heterogeneity Closed Random versus fixed effects: choosing rather than defaulting — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024). Please read it before posting;…	+16	20	22k	13mo
Pooling trials with different estimands Evidence › Meta-analyses publication bias risk of bias effect size meta-analysis Solved On the subject in the title: Pooling trials with different estimands Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) with SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) and finding the…	+120	132	2.3k	1d
Publication bias detection and its low power Evidence › Meta-analyses heterogeneity publication bias effect size On the subject in the title: Publication bias detection and its low power Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have seen SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) cited in support of a claim I do not think it…		2	3.2k	1d

Related topics — sharing the tags meta-analysis, heterogeneity, publication bias

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Measurement error in home scales, with a worked standard deviation — a second dataset Research Methods › Statistics effect size confounding heterogeneity number needed to treat Solved Measurement error in home scales, with a worked standard deviation — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with SURPASS-2…		2	13k	7mo
Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables Research Methods › Statistics effect size heterogeneity confounding worked example Solved Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) with SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024) and finding…		2	60k	11mo
Random versus fixed effects: choosing rather than defaulting Evidence › Meta-analyses effect size publication bias risk of bias heterogeneity Closed Random versus fixed effects: choosing rather than defaulting — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024). Please read it before posting;…	+16	20	22k	13mo
Revisiting: What pooling buys you and what it destroys Evidence › Meta-analyses heterogeneity effect size publication bias Solved On the subject in the title: Revisiting: What pooling buys you and what it destroys Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before posting; the…	+97	107	4k	19h
About the Statistics category Research Methods › Statistics effect size number needed to treat heterogeneity Pinned Wiki Effect sizes, intervals, multiplicity, and the difference between absent and undetected. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…	+4	8	2.3k	7mo

Sponsored Janoshik Analytical — independent third-party testingHPLC purity and mass-spectrometric identity on submitted samples, reported with the method stated. The laboratory most often cited in this community’s verification records.Independent testing → Sponsored GL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — synthesis, directFounded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, over 1,500 staff and 200-plus patents. Custom peptide synthesis and amino acid derivatives, with a batch certificate on every order.Custom synthesis →