chris_chi24 said:

Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to: Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) —…

No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

tampaLisa73 said:

Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

chris_chi24 said:

Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to: Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) —…

Pushing back on chris_chi24 here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.