The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
In a meta-analysis, the I-squared statistic does not tell us how much the effect size varies
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“indicating that most of the observed variability in effects-which were highly dispersed-was real and there was likely no true common effect size across studies (Borenstein, 2022).”
From A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of turmeric in the treatment of digestive disorders (2024) · cites this paper as Borenstein, 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.
IntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Rovers, M. M., & Goeman, J. J. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247 · Cited by 2,264
Basics of meta‐analysis: I 2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity
Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P. T., Hedges, L. V., & Rothstein, H. R. (2017) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1230 · Cited by 1,848 · cited 2×
“Additionally, we should adjust the interval to allow for the fact that the mean and the standard deviation are estimated rather than known [5].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Higgins, 2002, Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis, Stat Med, 21, 1539, 10.1002/sim.1186 · DOI · Paper page
- Higgins, 2003, Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses, BMJ, 327, 557, 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · DOI · Paper page
- Sorita, 2014, Off-hour presentation and outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ, 348, f7393, 10.1136/bmj.f7393 · DOI
- Holst, 2015, Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy for red blood cell transfusion: systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis, BMJ, 350, h1354, 10.1136/bmj.h1354 · DOI
- Borenstein, 2020, Research note: in a meta-analysis, the I2 index does not tell us how much the effect size varies across studies, J Phys, 66, 135
- Higgins, 2008, Commentary: heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified, Int J Epidemiol, 37, 1158, 10.1093/ije/dyn204 · DOI · Paper page
- Bailar, 1997, The promise and problems of meta-analysis, N Engl J Med, 337, 559, 10.1056/NEJM199708213370810 · DOI
Cited by
Sociodemographic determinants of digital health literacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Estrela, M., Semedo, G., Roque, F., Ferreira, P. L., & Herdeiro, M. T. (2023) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105124 · Cited by 414
A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of turmeric in the treatment of digestive disorders
Thavorn, K., Wolfe, D., Faust, L., Shorr, R., Akkawi, M., Isaranuwatchai, W., Klinger, C., Chai‐Adisaksopa, C., Tanvejsilp, P., Nochaiwong, S., et al. (2024) · Phytotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/ptr.8189 · Cited by 11
Yuyan, Y., Jiaqi, L., Ting, W., Juan, X., Jinfeng, W., & Jing, L. (2025) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2025.102862 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Borenstein, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-12
- Volume
- 152
- Pages
- 281-284
- ISSN
- 0895-4356
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
