Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals Everything below is what sits behind that.

Comparing SURMOUNT-4 (JAMA, 2024) with FLOW (N Engl J Med, 2024) and finding the comparison harder than it looks.

Different populations, different durations, different endpoints defined slightly differently, and in one case a different estimand. People compare the headline percentages anyway, including me until recently.

Is there a defensible way to put these side by side, or is the honest answer that there is not and we should stop?

On the opening post — 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.

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

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.

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.

This follows post #4 rather than contradicting it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On post #9 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

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.