Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorBorg, David N.
dc.contributor.authorImpellizzeri, Franco M.
dc.contributor.authorBorg, Samantha J.
dc.contributor.authorHutchins, Kate P.
dc.contributor.authorStewart, Ian B.
dc.contributor.authorJones, Tamara
dc.contributor.authorBaguley, Brenton J.
dc.contributor.authorOrssatto, Lucas B. R.
dc.contributor.authorBach, Aaron J. E.
dc.contributor.authorOsborne, John Owen
dc.contributor.authorMcMaster, Benjamin S.
dc.contributor.authorBuhmann, Robert L.
dc.contributor.authorBon, Joshua J.
dc.contributor.authorBarnett, Adrian G.
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-04T08:09:30Z
dc.date.available2024-10-04T08:09:30Z
dc.date.issued2024-03-19
dc.description.abstractAim: 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 metaanalysis 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.<p> <p>Methods: 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. <p>Results: 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. <p>Conclusion: 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationBorg, Impellizzeri, Borg, Hutchins, Stewart, Jones, Baguley, Orssatto, Bach, Osborne, McMaster, Buhmann, Bon, Barnett. Meta-analysis prediction intervals are under reported in sport and exercise medicine. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2024;34(3)en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2259865
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/sms.14603
dc.identifier.issn0905-7188
dc.identifier.issn1600-0838
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/35043
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.journalScandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleMeta-analysis prediction intervals are under reported in sport and exercise medicineen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Med mindre det står noe annet, er denne innførselens lisens beskrevet som Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)