SynthesisResearch synthesis methods2021
Study specific prediction intervals for random-effects meta-analysis: A tutorial: Prediction intervals in meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Research synthesis methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Where Are the Gaps in Diabetes Care? An Evidence Gap Mapping of the Diabetes Patient Journey in Indonesia.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Pooled it
- Investigating the role of ultrasound-based shear wave elastography in kidney transplanted patients: correlation between non-invasive fibrosis detection, kidney dysfunction and biopsy results-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of nephrology · 2024Pooled it
- Study specific prediction intervals for random-effects meta-analysis: A tutorial: Prediction intervals in meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2021Pooled it
- The association of ADHD and ADHD medication with adherence to pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes: a population-based cohort study from seven countries.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- ADHD and adherence to antihypertensive medication treatment: a multinational cohort study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond prediction intervals in meta-analysis: reporting the expected proportion of comparable studies with clinically relevant benefit or harm.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Mutually reinforcing relationship between Sjögren's syndrome and lung adenocarcinoma: insights from Mendelian randomisation, single-cell, and transcriptomic analyses.Frontiers of medicine · 2025Article
- The Burden of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteremia in Ontario: A Population-Wide Analysis of Attributable Mortality From 110 Pathogen-Antibiotic Combinations.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- A New Frequentist Implementation of the Daniels and Hughes Bivariate Meta-Analysis Model for Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
- Assessing the impact of temperature on acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospitalizations in residents of Panzhihua City: a multi-districts study using a distributed lag non-linear model.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Preoperative Epidural Steroid Injections and Postoperative Infections After Lumbar or Cervical Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2023Article
- Incorporating dose effects in network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pooled estimate of the average effect is of primary interest when fitting the random-effects model for meta-analysis. However estimates of study specific effects, for example those displayed on forest plots, are also often of interest. In this tutorial, we present the case, with the accompanying statistical theory, for estimating the study specific true effects using so called 'empirical Bayes estimates' or 'Best Unbiased Linear Predictions' under the random-effects model. These estimates can be accompanied by prediction intervals that indicate a plausible range of study specific true effects. We coalesce and elucidate the available literature and illustrate the methodology using two published meta-analyses as examples. We also perform a simulation study that reveals that coverage probability of study specific prediction intervals are substantially too low if the between-study variance is small but not negligible. Researchers need to be aware of this defect when interpreting prediction intervals. We also show how empirical Bayes estimates, accompanied with study specific prediction intervals, can embellish forest plots. We hope that this tutorial will serve to provide a clear theoretical underpinning for this methodology and encourage its widespread adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.