Cited by 696Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis

Ioannidis, John P. A.·2008·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Statistical tests of heterogeneity and bias, in particular publication bias, are very popular in meta-analyses. These tests use statistical approaches whose limitations are often not recognized. Moreover, it is often implied with inappropriate confidence that these tests can provide reliable answers to questions that in essence are not of statistical nature. Statistical heterogeneity is only a correlate of clinical and pragmatic heterogeneity and the correlation may sometimes be weak. Similarly, statistical signals may hint to bias, but seen in isolation they cannot fully prove or disprove bias in general, let alone specific causes of bias, such as publication bias in particular. Both false-positive and false-negative signals of heterogeneity and bias can be common and their prevalence may be anticipated based on some rational considerations. Here I discuss the major common challenges and flaws that emerge in using and interpreting statistical tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analyses. I discuss misinterpretations that can occur at the level of statistical inference, clinical/pragmatic inference and specific cause attribution. Suggestions are made on how to avoid these flaws, use these tests properly and learn from them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00986.x

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Affiliations
University of Ioannina (GR)
Corresponding author
Ioannidis, John P. A.
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-10
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
951-957
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W2144112749
Cited by
696
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 15
FWCI
4.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
heterogeneity testing, publication bias, meta-analysis, statistical heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity, false positive signals, bias detection
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Risk, Sensitivity and Specificity, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Confidence Intervals, Publication Bias, Evidence-Based Medicine

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