given continuously for 3 years, whereas results following shorter treatment regimens were reported in most of the remaining studies (2).These factors may at least partly explain the extreme outcomes of the three influential studies, which were causing the heterogeneity of the original AR meta-analysis, and the lesson learned from this could be that characteristics of individual SIT products might also contribute to the different clinical outcomes.Thus, excluding studies identified as extreme outliers from the AR metaanalysis (as generally advised within statistics) using influence statistics helped identify outliers and reasons for heterogeneity.Subsequently, the overall result of the AR meta-analysis was still clearly significant and without heterogeneity (Fig. 1C and D).However, there might be other cases where the outcome is less clear, and where very few patients can be pivotal for the final result.In conclusion, caution should be exercised upon interpretation of results from meta-analyses with significant heterogeneity.We recommend including influence statistics and influence plots into the statistical guidelines of the Cochrane Library and in all meta-analyses impaired by significant heterogeneity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruni et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: