Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

teadrinkinghippie t1_j7fkm06 wrote

Also I squared values don't hold. For example, "For each 5 %E increase in dietary carbohydrate intake, the summary RR was 1.02 (1.00–1.04, I2 = 66.8%) for cardiovascular disease, 1.04 (1.01–1.06, I2 = 0) for stroke but not significant for other outcomes." I2 = 0 is equivalent to saying all of this difference is attributable to chance and not differences between data. So while RR for stroke is 1.2 (20% increase), the amount of that increase attributable to real difference is ... zero.


guyincognito121 t1_j7hyv6w wrote

I thought that the numerator of I^2 was the variability between studies. So if it equals zero, that means the effect was perfectly consistent across studies...?


godlords t1_j7itm4x wrote

You are spouting a misinterpretation of I^(2)