Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 763

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees

Open access
Lewis, Steff, Clarke, Mike·2001·BMJ

Abstract

Few systematic reviews containing meta-analyses are complete without a forest plot. But what are forest plots, and where did they come from? #### Summary points Forest plots show the information from the individual studies that went into the meta-analysis at a glance They show the amount of variation between the studies and an estimate of the overall result Forest plots, in various forms, have been published for about 20 years During this time, they have been improved, but it is still not easy to draw them in most standard computer packages In a typical forest plot, the results of component studies are shown as squares centred on the point estimate of the result of each study. A horizontal line runs through the square to show its confidence interval—usually, but not always, a 95% confidence interval. The overall estimate from the meta-analysis and its confidence interval are put at the bottom, represented as a diamond. The centre of the diamond …

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1479

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Cochrane Collaboration . Cochrane Library. Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 2001.
  2. 10.2307/2683468 · DOI
  3. DeMets, 1987, Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and weaknesses, Stat Med, 6, 341, 10.1002/sim.4780060325 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Galbraith, 1988, A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials, Stat Med, 7, 889, 10.1002/sim.4780070807 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 1988, Secondary prevention of vascular disease by prolonged antiplatelet treatment, BMJ, 296, 320, 10.1136/bmj.296.6618.320 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Sindhu, 1996, Are non-pharmacological nursing interventions for the management of pain effective? A meta-analysis, J Adv Nurs, 24, 1152, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1996.tb01020.x · DOI
  7. Bijnens L Collette L Ivanov A Hoctin Boes G Sylvester R . Optimal graphical display of the results of meta-analyses of individual patient data. In: Proceedings of the 4th Cochrane colloquium, Adelaide, Australia, 1996. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration, 1996.

Cited by

See all 763

Metadata

Authors
Lewis, S., & Clarke, M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-06-16
Volume
322
Issue
7300
Pages
1479-1480
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2044414901
Cited by
763
References
2
FWCI
7.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1479
The paper
Lewis, S., & Clarke, M. (2001). Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1479

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.