Research Note: In a meta-analysis, the I index does not tell us how much the effect size varies across studies
Open accessThe 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
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?
The prediction interval for true effect sizes is -0.598 to 2.350, and 95% of all comparable populations have genuine effect sizes in this interval.
“We can estimate the prediction interval of -0.598 to 2.350 if we assume that the true effects are normally distributed in (d units).The true ES in 95% of all comparable populations falls within this interval”
From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Borenstein, 2020
The prediction interval section defines a 95% prediction interval as containing the true effect size for 95% of comparable studies, supporting the interpretation of the interval. But the paper’s example uses hazard ratios of approximately 0.71 to 0.84; it does not report −0.598 to 2.350 in d units or establish that those endpoints cover the citing paper’s populations. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe mean effect size is not precisely zero (Z = 4.496, p < 0.001).
“The Z-value is 4.496 with p < 0.001.Using a criterion alpha of 0.050, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that in the universe of populations comparable to those in the analysis, the mean ES is not precisely zero.”
From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Borenstein, 2020
The Motivating example reports a mean hazard ratio of 0.77 with a confidence interval of 0.75 to 0.79, but it does not report the claimed Z-value or p-value. The section on how much the effect size varies across studies tests a different null hypothesis—whether all studies share a common effect size. Searches for the Z-value and the stated conclusion about a mean of zero found no matching passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256 · see citing works
Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses
Riley, R. D., Higgins, J. P. T., & Deeks, J. J. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d549 · Cited by 2,884 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Basics of meta‐analysis: <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> 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 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Calvin CM, et al. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;40:626-644.
- Borenstein M, et al. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8:5-18.
- Rucker G, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:79.
- Huedo-Medina TB, et al. Psychol Methods. 2006;11:193-206.
- Mittlbock M, et al. Stat Med. 2006;25:4321-4333.
- Borenstein M, et al. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.
- Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-1558.
- IntHout J, et al. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010247.
- Chiolero A, et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27:823-825.
- Graham PL, Moran JL. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:503-510.
- Guddat C, et al. Syst Rev. 2012;1:34.
- Riley RD, et al. BMJ. 2011;342:d549.
- Wang C-C, Lee W-C. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10:255-266.
- Nagashima K, et al. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28:1689-1702.
- Higgins JP, et al. BMJ. 2003;327:557-560.
- Higgins JP. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1158-1160.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brini, S., Brudasca, N. I., Hodkinson, A., Kaluzinska, K., Wach, A., Storman, D., Prokop-Dorner, A., Jemioło, P., & Bala, M. M. (2023) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102236 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Muneer, S., Santhosh, M., Parangusan, H., & Bhadra, J. (2026) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-025-10005-2 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Borenstein, M.
- Affiliations
- Biostat (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Borenstein, Michael
- ORCID
- Borenstein, Michael
- Venue
- Journal of Physiotherapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135-139
- ISSN
- 1836-9553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3016811923
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 11.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of physiotherapy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- I-index, heterogeneity, effect size, meta-analysis, between-study variability
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Physical Therapy Specialty
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
