Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2025
Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
Meta-analysis prediction intervals are under reported in sport and exercise medicine
David N Borg1,2,3, Franco M Impellizzeri4, Samantha J Borg1
1Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Aim:
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.
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.
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.
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.
More Related Videos
06:52An Inertial Measurement Unit Based Method to Estimate Hip and Knee Joint Kinematics in Team Sport Athletes on the Field
Published on: May 26, 2020
05:51Assessing the Accuracy of Fitness Smartwatch Data for Cardiovascular and Physical Activity Monitoring: A Validation Study in Digital Health
Published on: February 21, 2025
Related Concept Videos
01:03Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
01:19Interpretation of Confidence Intervals
Confidence intervals have confidence coefficients that are crucial for their interpretation. The most common confidence coefficients are 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99, which can be written as percentages–90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.
Suppose a person calculates a confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 0.95. In that case, they can...
01:21Confidence Intervals
A...
00:54Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...