Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity

Res Synth Methods. 2017 Mar;8(1):5-18. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1230. Epub 2017 Jan 6.

Abstract

When we speak about heterogeneity in a meta-analysis, our intent is usually to understand the substantive implications of the heterogeneity. If an intervention yields a mean effect size of 50 points, we want to know if the effect size in different populations varies from 40 to 60, or from 10 to 90, because this speaks to the potential utility of the intervention. While there is a common belief that the I2 statistic provides this information, it actually does not. In this example, if we are told that I2 is 50%, we have no way of knowing if the effects range from 40 to 60, or from 10 to 90, or across some other range. Rather, if we want to communicate the predicted range of effects, then we should simply report this range. This gives readers the information they think is being captured by I2 and does so in a way that is concise and unambiguous. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: I-squared; I2; heterogeneity; inconsistency; meta-analysis; prediction intervals.

MeSH terms

  • Algorithms
  • Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity / drug therapy
  • Attitude
  • Cognition / drug effects
  • Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic
  • Erectile Dysfunction / drug therapy
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Meta-Analysis as Topic*
  • Methylphenidate / therapeutic use
  • Models, Statistical
  • Mothers
  • Prevalence
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Research Design*
  • Statistics as Topic
  • Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic / therapy
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Methylphenidate