The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“These limitations are common in meta-analyses of cross-sectional studies (Ioannidis, 2008).”
From Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Ioannidis, 2008
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Self-citationThe combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Self-citationAssessing 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
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8 · Cited by 3,779
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 695
Agimas, M. C., Aweke, M. N., Mengistu, B., Baffa, L. D., Fentie, E. A., Shewarega, E. S., Belew, A. K., & Muhammad, E. A. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333593 · Cited by 3
Genomic profiling of head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sharma, M., Narwal, A., Kamboj, M., Devi, A., Kumar, A., & Vijayakumar, G. (2025) · Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics · doi:10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_908_25 · Cited by 2
Change of d-irection: current limitations and future directions in psychological meta-analysis
Alfarone, I., & Gondan, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1717798 · Cited by 2
“Although statistical measures such as Cochran’s Q and the I 2 statistic are commonly used to quantify heterogeneity, they do not fully capture the complexity of the issue (Ioannidis, 2008; Holzmeister et al., 2024).”
Piñar-Lara, M., Obrero-Gaitán, E., Gómez-Molina, S., Lomas-Vega, R., García-López, H., & Cortés-Pérez, I. (2026) · Children · doi:10.3390/children13020278 · Cited by 1
“Inconsis-tency or heterogeneity was calculated with the degree of inconsistency of Higgins (I 2 ), the χ -square test, and its p -value [41,42].”
Hon, H. H., Stoltzfus, J. C., & Stawicki, S. P. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33341-0_39 · Cited by 2
Forest Plots in a Meta-Analysis
Patole, S. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71921-0_8 · Cited by 2
The Effect of Surgical Approach on Clinical Outcomes in 535 Patients with Remnant Gastric Cancer
Li, Z., Qiu, Y.-Y., Liu, F., Liu, X., Zhang, W., & Peng, D. (2023) · Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques · doi:10.1089/lap.2023.0164 · Cited by 2
Azizi, B., Mohseni, S., Tabatabaei‐Malazy, O., Esmaeili, F., Khodaeian, M., Qorbani, M., Nazeri, E., & Nouhi, Z. (2023) · Inflammopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s10787-023-01315-9 · Cited by 3
“Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was statistically evaluated using the chi-square and I 2 tests, and P 0.1 was considered statistically significant (Ioannidis 2008).”
MethodInfluentialImpossible Hypotheses and Effect-Size Limits
van Tilburg, W. A. P., & van Tilburg, L. J. A. (2023) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459231197605 · Cited by 7
“Issues such as heterogeneity across studies, questionable research practices, publication bias, and selective reporting can all bias meta-analytic results (Ioannidis, 2008; Ones et al., 2017).”
BackgroundTaramasco, C., Rimassa, C., Garrido, M. E. L., & Figueroa, R. L. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301523 · Cited by 2
“[22, 23].”
Ren, S., Chen, X., Yang, Z., Chen, T., Hu, X., Feng, Y., & Ren, S. (2024) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2024.1409022 · Cited by 2
“The pooled incidences of the study outcomes were classi fi ed as having low, moderate, and high statistical heterogeneity based on I 2 values of < 25%, between 26% and 75%, and > 75%, respectively (Ioannidis, 2008).”
MethodImpact of medicinal plants on bone health; a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies
Karimi, S. M., Abbaspour, F., Tabatabaei‐Malazy, O., Qolami, H., Fayyaz, F., Fana, S. E., Rahimi, R., Salari, P., & Larijani, B. A. (2024) · Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101545 · Cited by 2
Demis, S., Kassaw, A., Aytenew, T. M., Agmas, K., & Kefale, D. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316464 · Cited by 2
Effects of chronic kidney disease on complications and mortality after fracture surgery
Lu, B.-B., Liu, X., Chen, Q., Yuan, X., Luo, Q., Hu, Y., & Liao, X. (2025) · Perioperative Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13741-025-00514-y · Cited by 2
“In this meta-analysis, odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous variables (Ioannidis 2008).”
Cui, M., Jia, Y., Chen, Z., Qu, J.-M., Zhu, Z.-H., Xu, Y., Liu, S., Chen, R., & Yi, S. (2025) · World Journal of Emergency Surgery · doi:10.1186/s13017-025-00619-1 · Cited by 3
“…between studies can be found and different pooled ORs can be identified under different clinical conditions, so that the appropriate choice of treatment regimen (PC or DC/NC, PUA or NUA) can be made under different clinical conditions according to results of subgroup analysis [35, 36].”
Ortiz, H. A. D. L. B., Maza, T. C. D. L., Gascón-Madrid, M. J., Hormazábal-Cerda, G., Arellano, A. D. M., & Chamorro-Lange, C. (2025) · Physiotherapy Quarterly · doi:10.5114/pq/192504 · Cited by 2
Yilak, G., Tilahun, B. D., Taye, A. B., Molla, B., Getie, ፟., Tsegaye, D., Ayele, M., & Lake, E. S. (2025) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07998-y · Cited by 2
“In this study, an I 2 statistic value of zero indicated true homogeneity, whereas values of 25%, 50%, and 75% represented low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively [21, 22].”
Gheshlagh, R. G., Ansari, M., Dalvand, P., Shabani, F., & Albatineh, A. N. (2022) · PubMed · doi:10.21307/immunohematology-2022-034 · Cited by 2
Liu, X., Li, L.-S., Liu, F., Li, Z., Liu, X.-Y., Zhang, W., & Peng, D. (2023) · Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques · doi:10.1089/lap.2023.0022 · Cited by 2
“21,22 According to the Cochrane handbook, the I 2 < 30% was considered unimportant, 30%–60% was considered moderate, and > 60% was considered substantial.”
Identifying homogenous subgroups for individual patient meta-analysis based on Rough Set Theory
Gil-Herrera, E., Tsalatsanis, A., Kumar, A., Mhaskar, R. S., Miladinović, B., Yalçin, A., & Djulbegović, B. (2014) · Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc.2014.6944361 · Cited by 2
Improving the ACGIH threshold limit value (TLV) process
Smith, C. J., & Perfetti, T. A. (2018) · Toxicology Research and Application · doi:10.1177/2397847318801758 · Cited by 2
Wolden, M., Hill, B., & Voorhees, S. F. (2018) · Journal of Physical Therapy Education · doi:10.1097/jte.0000000000000075 · Cited by 2
“Similar to the Q statistic, I(2) has limited power when only a small number of studies are available.(30) Currently, there is no “gold standard” for determining heterogeneity in meta-analysis studies.”
Risk of thyroid cancer among patients with vitiligo: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Li, Y., Chang, T.-A., Wang, J., Chen, L., Lu, J.-W., Loh, C., & Chen, T. (2023) · Dermatologica Sinica · doi:10.4103/ds.ds-d-23-00089 · Cited by 3
Tsekouras, V. (2013) · Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1586/17446651.2013.856137 · Cited by 2
EVIDENCE‐BASED UROLOGY IN PRACTICE: PUBLICATION BIAS
Zhu, Y., Duijvesz, D., Rovers, M. M., & Lock, T. (2011) · British Journal of Urology · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.10068_1.x · Cited by 2
Abate, B. B., Kassie, A. M., Kassaw, M. W., & Getu, M. A. (2019) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.2.13554/v1 · Cited by 2
“In this study, the I2 statistic value of zero indicates true homogeneity, whereas the value 25, 50, and 75% represented low, moderate and high heterogeneity respectively (29, 30).”
BackgroundMeta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials
Cappelleri, J. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Lau, J. (2010) · Informa Healthcare eBooks · doi:10.3109/9781439822463.125 · Cited by 2
Self-citationEditorial: Irritable Imaging: Interpreting Null Results in Psychiatric Neuroimaging
Glahn, D. C. (2022) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2022.11.004 · Cited by 2
Prevalence of Human Brucellosis in Ethiopia: Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisPreprint
Asrie, F., Berhane, N., Dagnew, M., & Birhan, M. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3078324/v1 · Cited by 2
Interpreting data from meta-analyses: Principles and pitfalls
Degraeve, B., & Lenne, B. (2023) · Revue de neuropsychologie · doi:10.1684/nrp.2023.0765 · Cited by 1
Akhtar, T. (2024) · Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research · doi:10.61919/jhrr.v4i3.1324 · Cited by 1
“High heterogeneity was observed in serum urea and hemoglobin outcomes, which could have influenced the pooled results (42,43).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialYang, W.-W., Zhou, X., & He, G. (2025) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2025.1440105 · Cited by 1
“To evaluate the statistical heterogeneity, the I 2 value and the chi-squared test were used (24, 25).”
Ortiz, H. A. D. L. B., Cortés, A., Pizarro, F., Sabaj, N., & Sainz, E. (2025) · Physiotherapy Quarterly · doi:10.5114/pq/176076 · Cited by 1
“…observed, the researchers employed either the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects method or the der-Simonian and Laird random-effects method to calculate the pooled effect using mean differences (Mds) for the outcomes of interest, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (Ci) [28].”
InfluentialImmunocompetent mouse models of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Coté, J. J., Coté, R. D., Zent, I., Woods, K., Kedeshian, K., Hendry, M., Dykstal, K., & Walters, R. W. (2025) · F&S Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.xfnr.2025.100091 · Cited by 1
Yilmaz, S., Huguet, A., Kisely, S. R., Rao, S., Wang, J., Price, M., Morriss, R. K., Inder, M., Perich, T., & Wright, K. A. (2025) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291725001023 · Cited by 1
“True variations in participants, interventions, cointerventions, outcomes, assessments, contexts, and a plethora of other variables that change throughout the sets of data, studies, and participants might represent the cause of heterogeneity (Ioannidis, 2008).”
Tiongco, R. E., Cayanan, N. D., Dominguez, M. J., Doctora, M. T. M., & Mercado, J. A. (2025) · Egyptian Pediatric Association Gazette · doi:10.1186/s43054-025-00396-1 · Cited by 1
“Publication bias testing was no longer performed due to the low number ( n = 4) of studies [29, 30] for the HWE-compliant subgroup.”
Asghari, S. H., Wong, A., Comfort, P., Mirghani, S. J., Sharifian, S., & Ghaderi, M. (2025) · Sports Biomechanics · doi:10.1080/14763141.2025.2553700 · Cited by 1
“As Ioannidis (2008) has noted, such substantial heterogeneity is ‘highly common in meta-analyses’, and it necessitates caution in interpretation rather than abandonment of the pooled results (Ioannidis, 2008).”
Mengistie, B. A., Yirsaw, A. N., Lakew, G., Mekonnen, G. B., Shibabaw, A. A., Chereka, A. A., Kitil, G. W., Wondie, W. T., Tareke, A. A., Mulatu, G. G., et al. (2026) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/s13690-025-01823-w · Cited by 1
“Heterogeneity across the included studies was classified as low, moderate, or high when the values of I-square were 25%, 50%−75%, and 75%, respectively [32].”
Sotiropoulos, S., Kalafatis, E., Michalakakos, E., Mavrogenis, A. F., & Georgoudis, G. (2026) · SICOT-J · doi:10.1051/sicotj/2025061 · Cited by 1
Tiongco, R. E., Guintu, M. A. A. D., Cayanan, N. D., Dominguez, M. J., & Pineda-Cortel, M. R. (2026) · Biomarkers · doi:10.1080/1354750x.2026.2628035 · Cited by 1
“Publication bias testing using the egger regression asymmetry test and the Begg–Mazumdar correlation test was performed using Meta-essentials (suurmond et al. 2017) and was only done if associations were significant and had ≥ 10 studies (ioannidis 2008; Dalton et al. 2016).”
Zambella, E., Inversetti, A., Pivato, C. A., Cristodoro, M., Stefanini, G. G., & Simone, N. D. (2026) · European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes · doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcag020 · Cited by 1
“Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I ² statistics, according to Higgins et al. and Ioannidis 27,28 : the degree of heterogeneity was classified as low if I ² was less than 30%, moderate if between 30% and 70%, and high if greater than 70%.”
Yilak, G., Molla, B., Tilahun, B. D., Abate, B. B., Kitaw, T. A., Kassie, A., Getie, ፟., Erega, B. B., Ayele, M., & Lake, E. S. (2026) · AJOG Global Reports · doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2026.100620 · Cited by 1
Upper gastrointestinal cancer risk following bariatric surgery: meta-analysis
Cooke, H., Harewood, R., Hossain, N., Cross, A. J., & Murphy, G. A. (2026) · BJS Open · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrag006 · Cited by 1
“Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, with values of < 25%, 25–50%, 51–75%, and > 75% interpreted as low, moderate, substantial, and high heterogeneity, respectively 33 .”
Chen, Y., Ren, S., Yao, X., Li, M., Li, G., Feng, Y., & Shi, X. (2026) · Renal Failure · doi:10.1080/0886022x.2026.2654288 · Cited by 2
“…modes and locations of physical exercises. i 2 statistic was used to determine heterogeneity among included studies, and the pooled results of individual outcomes were deemed having low, moderate, and high statistical heterogeneity if i 2 was <25%, between 26% and 75%, and >75%, respectively [15].”
Ethical and Legal Concerns of Deepfake Technology in Biomedical Imaging: A Comprehensive Survey
Rajpar, S. A., Chen, H., & Ashiru, A. (2026) · Annals of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10439-026-04128-3 · Cited by 1
“Results differ depending on whether datasets are public or private, with private collections often producing inflated performance that does not generalize externally [78].”
Wang, L., Liu, X., Tan, C., Wang, Z., & Cheng, Y. (2026) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-026-16070-7 · Cited by 1
“…ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to pool the association between RAGE expression and overall survival (OS), while odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs were used to pool the differences in AGEs, RAGE, and sRAGE [26] levels between CRC patients and control subjects.”
Heidari, M., Mirdamadi, N., Khashayar, P., Tabatabaei‐Malazy, O., Golabchi, M., & Khashayar, P. (2026) · Archives of Osteoporosis · doi:10.1007/s11657-026-01713-w · Cited by 1
Abd-Alrazaq, A. A., Mohamed, S. P., Alajlani, M., Tabassum, A., Ordóñez-Mena, J. M., Yoosuf, S., Alkhateeb, M., Ahmed, A., Bashir, M., Qadir, J., et al. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/87882 · Cited by 1
Gebrie, E., Chane, E., Mengistie, B. A., Kibralew, G., Worku, H., Mulugeta, B., & Zayede, A. (2026) · Sexual Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qeag046 · Cited by 1
Risk factors for skin tears in the older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Guan, A., Huang, Y., Guo, Y., Huang, H., Lv, J., Yang, C., Wei, S., & Chen, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1880249 · Cited by 1
“If results remained heterogeneous, meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model (26).”
Karimi, M., Asbaghi, O., Rafiei, H., Kazemi, K., Yazdizadeh, S., Radman, G., Hosseini, R., Hosseini, M., Sabet, M., & Goudarzi, M. A. (2026) · Journal of human nutrition and dietetics (Print) · doi:10.1111/jhn.70329 · Cited by 1
Islam, A., Papageorgiou, S. N., Hamza, B., & Schätzle, M. A. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15197749
“All p values were two-sided with an alpha of 5%, except for between-studies or between-subgroups heterogeneity, where alpha was set at 10% [18].”
Prophylactic Retinopexy in Fellow Eyes After Contralateral Retinal Detachment
Khatami, P., Huh, S. M., Nezhadi, N., Ashamalla, M., Hedayatpour, A. T., Sajjadi, S., Butt, F. R., Esomchukwu, O., Tao, B. K.-L., Muni, R., et al. (2026) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2026.08.008 · Cited by 1
Weder heiliger Gral noch Teufelswerk: eine methodenkritische Bewertung der Meta-Analyse
Koschack, J. (2009) · DMW - Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1243030 · Cited by 1
Quach, P. (2013) · uO Research (University of Ottawa) · doi:10.20381/ruor-3297 · Cited by 1
“Relevant information from each study was inputted into RevMan which generated funnel plots and their associated heterogeneity statistics, I(2) and Cochrane’s Q(81).”
MethodEpidemiological Product Assessment
Ethgen, O., & Bruyère, O. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50530-5_5 · Cited by 1
Biaix de publicació en meta-anàlisi: revisió dels mètodes de detecció i avaluació
Badenes‐Ribera, L., Dolores, F. N. M., & Campos, A. B. (2018) · Anuari de Psicologia de la Societat Valenciana de Psicologia · doi:10.7203/anuari.psicologia.18.1.13 · Cited by 1
Mechanical Equipment Reliability Analysis: Case Study
Qarahasanlou, A. N., ShakorShahabi, R., برآبادی, ر., & Fallahnejad, N. (2021) · International Journal of Reliability Risk and Safety Theory and Application · doi:10.30699/ijrrs.4.2.7 · Cited by 1
“If the slope is not zero, then the proportional hazard assumption has been violated [47].”
BackgroundMartínez, F. T., Tobar, C., & Taramasco, C. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293948 · Cited by 1
Almohaileb, F. I., & Rasheed, Z. (2023) · Current Rheumatology Reviews · doi:10.2174/0115733971249660231101102757 · Cited by 1
Tan, J., Song, R., Luo, S., Ma, Y., Su, J., Qin, B., & He, Z. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23022 · Cited by 1
“And this research was conducted by following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the guidelines of the Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) [9,10].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKakinda, M., Olum, R., Baluku, J. B., & Bongomin, F. (2023) · Open Forum Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofad624 · Cited by 7
“Higgins’ inconsistency index ( I 2 ) was used to measure heterogeneity ( I 2 > 50% indicating substantial heterogeneity) [20, 21] using Stata 17 software (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).”
MethodSaklani, N. K. (2024) · International Journal of High Dilution Research · doi:10.51910/ijhdr.v23icf.1406 · Cited by 1
Shahabi, S., Lankarani, K. B., Ezati, R., & ShahAli, S. (2024) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2024.08.007 · Cited by 2
Abdunabi, F., Kowash, M., Makrygiannakis, M. A., & Kaklamanos, E. G. (2025) · European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry · doi:10.1007/s40368-025-01025-6 · Cited by 1
“Significance (a) was to be set at 0.05, except for the 0.10 used for the heterogeneity tests (Ioannidis 2008).”
InfluentialNunes, G. D. S. P., Giroto, A. B., Nunes, S. G., Mareco, E. A., Díaz‐Fabregat, B., & Castilho, A. C. S. (2025) · Theriogenology · doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2025.117626 · Cited by 1
La relación entre la medicina y los proveedores médicos
Heerlein, A. (2014) · Revista médica de Chile · doi:10.4067/s0034-98872014000300011 · Cited by 1
A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH
Tong, M. C. F., Wheat, J. M., & Currie, G. M. (2020) · Pakistan Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.24911/pjnmed.175-1578555253
Jiao, B., Chen, M., Fan, M., Luo, X., Chen, C., & Liu, J. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056190 · Cited by 1
Antoniou, E. E., & Zeegers, M. P. (2022) · Toxicology and Industrial Health · doi:10.1177/07482337221095386 · Cited by 1
“The I(2) (I-squared statistic) was used to describe the percentage of variation in study results across studies due to heterogeneity (Ioannidis, 2008) and was categorized as low (<25%), moderate (25–75%), or high (>75%).”
MethodJiang, T., Leng, W., & Zhong, S. (2023) · Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1093/labmed/lmac151 · Cited by 1
Heterogeneity of research results: New perspectives on psychological science
Linden, A. H. (2019) · Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) · Cited by 1
Antimicrobial-associated Organ Injury among the Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisPreprint
Chinzowu, T., Roy, S., & Nishtala, P. S. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-342681/v1 · Cited by 1
“Ioannidis JP. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis.”
BackgroundInfluentialStandard meta-analysis methods are not robustPreprint
Young, S. S., & Kindzierski, W. B. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14511 · Cited by 1
“This point that has been made numerous times in literature (e.g., DerSimion and Laird 1986, Egger et al. 2001, Sterne et al. 2001, Ioannidis 2008, NASEM 2019).”
BackgroundImpossible Hypotheses and Effect Size LimitsPreprint
van Tilburg, W. A. P., & van Tilburg, L. J. A. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/jymtu · Cited by 1
Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Contopoulos‐Ioannidis, D. G. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.10.07.22280814 · Cited by 1
“2% Dengue burden*** High 92 15 (13-17) 97.”
Self-citationEvidence-based surgery. Dissemination, communication, decision aids
Knops, A. M. (2013) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam)
Buetow, S. (2015) · European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare · doi:10.5750/ejpch.v3i1.839
Tanrıverdi, Ö., & Yeniçeri, N. (2015) · Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.3.1303
“Studies with ‘negative’ (nonstatistically significant) results are more likely to be underpresented and remain unpublished than studies with ‘positive’ (formally statistically significant) results, therefore the results of a literature research can be expected to be biased toward significant results and eventually ant…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialAdvance care planning for end-stage kidney disease
Effiong, A., Shinn, L., Pope, T. M., & Raho, J. A. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010687.pub2
The Mortality and Morbidity of Alcohol-attributable Injury
Taylor, B. J. (2014) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Quantifying Effect Sizes in Randomised and Controlled Trials: A Review
Erah, P. O., Bello, S. O., & Ganiyu, K. A. (2018) · Journal of Health Science Research · doi:10.18311/jhsr/2018/18664
“Relative Risk (RR) = ART ARC (17) / ( ) / ( ) a a b c x y + = + (18) Relative risk reduction (RRR) = ARC ART ARC − (19) = 1 – RR (20) Number needed to treat (NNT) = 1 ARR (21) The standard deviation (σ) of OR or RR can be calculated from 2( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2( ) ( ) a b x y H a b x y a b x y + + + σ = + + × + + + + (22)…”
BackgroundResponse to ‘Lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumonia’
Orso, D., Guglielmo, N., & Copetti, R. (2018) · European Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1097/mej.0000000000000576
Markon, K. E. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316995808.036
Evaluation of a Meta-Analysis of Ambient Air Quality as a Risk Factor for Asthma Exacerbation
Kindzierski, W. B., Young, S. S., Meyer, T. G., & Dunn, J. D. (2021) · Journal of Respiration · doi:10.3390/jor1030017 · Cited by 13
Young, S. S., Cheng, K.-C., Chen, J., Chen, S., & Kindzierski, W. B. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.10922
“emiological literature and any systematic review or meta-analysis of these studies may be biased [47,48] because they are summarizing information and data from a misleading, selected body of evidence [5,49]. Anderson et al. reported the following results of their meta-analysis: (i) for 13 cohort studies with NO2 estim…”
BackgroundInfluentialCritical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Patole, S. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71921-0_12
McFarland, L. V., Karatas, T., & Karataş, A. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3894914
Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials
Cappelleri, J. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Lau, J. (2012) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b14674-127
Self-citation(2021) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119558378.ref
Epidemiology of Child Psychopathology
Verhulst, F. C., & Tiemeier, H. W. (2020) · Mental health and illness worldwide · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0753-8_11-1
Epidemiology of Child Psychopathology
Verhulst, F., & Tiemeier, H. W. (2020) · Mental health and illness worldwide · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-2348-4_11
General Analytic Considerations
Wright, A. G. C., & Hallquist, M. N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316995808.034
Kindu, M., Zeleke, E. A., Tarekegn, B. G., & Yehuala, F. M. (2019) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.2.13405/v1
Erectile Dysfunction Among Testicular Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 2020Preprint
Kerie, S., Workineh, Y., Kasa, A. S., Ayalew, E., & Menberu, M. (2021) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-156138/v1
Advance care planning for end-stage kidney disease
Effiong, A., Shinn, L., Pope, T. M., & Raho, J. A. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010687
Retracted
Metadata
- 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
