ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Prediction Performance of Earlier Studies for Later Studies in Cochrane Reviews.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Alternative tests and measures for between-study inconsistency in meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleBetween-study heterogeneity poses challenges to the generalisability of meta-analytical results, which can influence their ability to predict outcomes in future studies. Prediction intervals have been proposed to account for both uncertainty and heterogeneity, yet their real-world performance in predicting future studies has not been systematically evaluated. AIMS AND
objectivesThis study aims to assess the prediction performance of meta-analyses, focusing on how effectively they predict later study results based on meta-analyses of earlier studies.
methodsThis empirical study used a comprehensive collection of meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Through in-sample evaluation, the success of predicting later study results was assessed based on meta-analyses of earlier studies in Cochrane reviews. The impact of factors such as the number of studies in the meta-analysis and uncertainties in heterogeneity estimation was also analysed.
resultsThe findings reveal that prediction failures are common, particularly as the number of studies in the meta-analysis increases. This may be attributed to uncertainties in estimating between-study heterogeneity. Conversely, when the number of studies is small, the proportion of successful predictions is high. However, this is likely due to large uncertainties in predictions and the limited information provided by fewer studies, which may reduce their utility in providing valuable evidence for future studies.
conclusionsThese results underscore the importance of cautious interpretation and further investigation when applying meta-analytical findings to future studies. Our findings suggest several potential strategies for predicting future study results through evidence synthesis, with particular emphasis on carefully considering between-study heterogeneity, the number of studies included in a meta-analysis, and the temporal trends in individual study results.
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.