Abstract:Background: A peer-reviewed meta-analysis methods article mathematically proved that mainstream random-effects methods, "weights inversely proportional to the estimated variance," are flawed and can lead to faulty public health recommendations. Because the arguments causing this off-label (unproven) use of mainstream practices were subtle, changing these practices will require much clearer explanations that can be grasped by clinical and translational scientists. There are five assumptions underlying the mainstream's derivation of its statistical properties. This paper will demonstrate that if the first is true, it follows that the last two are false. Ratio estimation, borrowed from classical survey sampling, provides a rigorous alternative. Papers reporting results rarely fully disclose these assumptions. This is analogous to watching TV ads with the sound muted. You see high quality of life and do not hear about the complications. This article is a poster child for translational science, as it takes a theoretical discovery from the biostatistical world, translates it into language clinical scientists can understand, and thereby can change their research practice. Aim: This article is aimed at future applications of meta-analysis of complete collections of randomized clinical trials. It leaves it to past authors as to whether to reanalyze their data. No blame for past use is assessed. Methods: By treating the individual completed studies in the meta-analysis as a random sample from a conceptual universe of completed studies, we use ratio estimation to obtain estimates of relative risk (ratio of failure rates treatment: control) and mean differences, projecting our sample value to estimate the universe's value. Results: Two examples demonstrate that the mainstream methods likely adversely impacted major treatment options. A third example shows that the key mainstream presumption of independence between the study weights and study estimates cannot be supported. Conclusion: There is no rationale for ever using the mainstream for meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Relevance for patients: Future meta-analysis of clinical trials should never employ mainstream methods. Doing so could lead to potentially harmful public health policy recommendations. Clinical researchers need to play a primary role to assure good research practices in meta-analysis.

Recent developments in meta‐analysis

What meta‐research has taught us about research and changes to research practices

Twenty years of network meta‐analysis: Continuing controversies and recent developments

Unveiling the Value of Meta-Analysis in Disease Prevention and Control: A Comprehensive Review

Meta‐epidemiological Study: a Step‐by‐step Approach by Using R

Interpretation of meta-analyses

A re-evaluation of fixed effect (s) meta-analysis

Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta‐analyses of health research: A review

Longitudinal Analysis of Meta-Analysis Literatures in the Database of ISI Web of Science.

Facilitating meta-analysis in nursing

Meta-analysis of clinical trials in the 2020s and beyond: a paradigm shift needed

Different meta-analysis methods can change judgements about imprecision of effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study

Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis

ALL-IN meta-analysis: breathing life into living systematic reviews

The Meta-Analysis: Supportive or Illuminating?

Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

[Meta-analyses-Explained my means of examples from anesthesia and pain medicine]

Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice

Sequential methods for random‐effects meta‐analysis

Appropriateness of conducting and reporting random‐effects meta‐analysis in oncology

Panning for the Gold in Health Research: Incorporating Studies' Methodological Quality in Meta-Analysis.