Topic summary

Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals

Evidence › Meta-analyses heterogeneity risk of bias effect size publication bias meta-analysis Solved Closed

This is a generated summary. It shows the 5 most-liked posts from a topic of 26, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

s.radichTL2 Moderator31 Mar 2026#3

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.

27 likes 4mo

KForsbergTL2Member Solution3 Apr 2026#8

I read post #6 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

7 likes 4mo

s.kimaniTL2 Moderator5 Apr 2026#12

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.

22 likes 4mo

ppm_errorTL3Analytical chemist6 Apr 2026#15

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

31 likes 4mo

j.falkTL2 Moderator10 Apr 2026#24

s.hartmann, post #7: 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. Go to post

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

27 likes in reply to #7 4mo

Read the full topic (26 posts)

This topic was referenced in

Individual participant data versus aggregate dataEvidence › Meta-analyses · 34 replies

This topic was closed 60 days after the last reply. Closing is automatic for quiet topics so that a settled answer does not collect new questions underneath it. If you have a follow-up, open a new topic and link back to this one — that keeps both readable and gives your question its own title.

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Second pass at: A pooled estimate that changed when one trial was added Evidence › Meta-analyses effect size risk of bias publication bias meta-analysis Wiki On the subject in the title: Second pass at: A pooled estimate that changed when one trial was added Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023). Please read it before…	+26	30	22k	1mo
Pooling trials with different estimands — what changed since Evidence › Meta-analyses publication bias risk of bias meta-analysis effect size Pooling trials with different estimands — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021) with SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) and finding…	+57	64	12k	7mo
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
Reading a meta-analysis you disagree with, fairly Evidence › Meta-analyses heterogeneity risk of bias effect size publication bias Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reading a meta-analysis you disagree with, fairly Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in support of a…	+7	13	2.5k	23mo
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

Related topics — sharing the tags heterogeneity, risk of bias, effect size

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — what changed since Outcomes › Progress reports effect size data table DXA long read Solved A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a…	+9	13	2.1k	9h
The most common factual error about semaglutide on the internet Compounds › Semaglutide STEP programme randomised trial type 2 diabetes effect size On the subject in the title: The most common factual error about semaglutide on the internet Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting; the…		2	49k	2y
Follow-up: What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism Compounds › Cagrilintide & amylin analogues effect size amylin analogues cagrisema What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support…		2	25k	11mo
Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither? Compounds › Retatrutide TRIUMPH programme effect size retatrutide randomised trial Solved Under review Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I have seen STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) cited in support…	+114	120	1.4k	10mo
About the N-of-1 designs category Research Methods › N-of-1 designs worked example confounding effect size Pinned Wiki Designing a personal experiment that could actually change your mind, including washouts and blinding. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is…		4	22k	14h