Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2024 Mar;34(3):e14603. doi: 10.1111/sms.14603.
Prediction intervals are a useful measure of uncertainty for meta-analyses that capture the likely effect size of a new (similar) study based on the included studies. In comparison, confidence intervals reflect the uncertainty around the point estimate but provide an incomplete summary of the underlying heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. This study aimed to estimate (i) the proportion of meta-analysis studies that report a prediction interval in sports medicine; and (ii) the proportion of studies with a discrepancy between the reported confidence interval and a calculated prediction interval.
We screened, at random, 1500 meta-analysis studies published between 2012 and 2022 in highly ranked sports medicine and medical journals. Articles that used a random effect meta-analysis model were included in the study. We randomly selected one meta-analysis from each article to extract data from, which included the number of estimates, the pooled effect, and the confidence and prediction interval.
Of the 1500 articles screened, 866 (514 from sports medicine) used a random effect model. The probability of a prediction interval being reported in sports medicine was 1.7% (95% CI = 0.9%, 3.3%). In medicine the probability was 3.9% (95% CI = 2.4%, 6.6%). A prediction interval was able to be calculated for 220 sports medicine studies. For 60% of these studies, there was a discrepancy in study findings between the reported confidence interval and the calculated prediction interval. Prediction intervals were 3.4 times wider than confidence intervals.
Very few meta-analyses report prediction intervals and hence are prone to missing the impact of between-study heterogeneity on the overall conclusions. The widespread misinterpretation of random effect meta-analyses could mean that potentially harmful treatments, or those lacking a sufficient evidence base, are being used in practice. Authors, reviewers, and editors should be aware of the importance of prediction intervals.
预测区间是元分析中一种有用的不确定性度量方法,它可以根据纳入的研究,预测新(类似)研究的可能效应大小。相比之下,置信区间反映了点估计的不确定性,但不能完全总结元分析中的潜在异质性。本研究旨在:(i)估计在运动医学领域报告预测区间的元分析研究的比例;(ii)报告的置信区间与计算的预测区间之间存在差异的研究的比例。
我们随机筛选了 2012 年至 2022 年期间在高排名的运动医学和医学期刊上发表的 1500 篇元分析研究。纳入的文章使用了随机效应元分析模型。我们从每篇文章中随机选择一篇元分析进行数据提取,包括估计数量、汇总效应、置信区间和预测区间。
在筛选的 1500 篇文章中,866 篇(514 篇来自运动医学)使用了随机效应模型。运动医学中报告预测区间的概率为 1.7%(95%CI=0.9%,3.3%)。医学中的概率为 3.9%(95%CI=2.4%,6.6%)。可以为 220 篇运动医学研究计算预测区间。对于其中 60%的研究,报告的置信区间和计算的预测区间之间存在研究结果的差异。预测区间比置信区间宽 3.4 倍。
很少有元分析报告预测区间,因此容易忽略研究间异质性对总体结论的影响。随机效应元分析的广泛误解可能意味着,在实践中可能使用了潜在有害的治疗方法,或者缺乏足够证据基础的治疗方法。作者、审稿人和编辑应该意识到预测区间的重要性。