Beyond prediction intervals in meta-analysis: reporting the expected proportion of comparable studies with clinically relevant benefit or harm
In addition to PIs, reporting the expected proportion of comparable studies with relevant benefit or harm as supplementary information could help physicians and other decision-makers to understand the potential utility of an intervention. However, these metrics must be interpreted with caution because the estimate of the between‑study heterogeneity [Formula: see text] may be imprecise when data are limited.
Authors
- Waldemar Siemens (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-5327)
- Theodoros Evrenoglou (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3336-8058)
- Joerg J Meerpohl (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-5403)
- Michael Borenstein (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0352-4320)
- Guido Schwarzer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6214-9087)
Institutions
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
- Biostat (United States) (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2025-12-07
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02733-9
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 1.40