Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(1)
We illustrate how new RCTs can have very low power to change inferences of an existing meta-analysis, particularly when between study heterogeneity is taken into consideration.
Similar(58)
Of interest, the two loci with highest-between study heterogeneity were not unanimously proposed as "conformed" susceptibility loci by all 3 GWA investigations.
Between study heterogeneity was high to moderate (I = 83%, 65%and56%6% respectively).
Between study heterogeneity was evaluated using the Q and I statistics [ 53].
Between study heterogeneity was high to negligible (I = 66%, 0% and 0% respectively).
The between study heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran's Q statistic 13 and the I statistic.
Estimation of between-study heterogeneity is problematic in small meta-analyses.
Between-study heterogeneity is also very large (77%).
Between-study heterogeneity is important to document and may point to interesting leads.
Between-study heterogeneity is useful to document in the synthesis of data from GWA investigations and can offer valuable insights for further clarification of gene-disease associations.
In general, when between-study heterogeneity is demonstrated or cannot be excluded, random effects models have been accepted as the default across different applications of meta-analysis and this should be accepted also for GWA investigations [1], [2], [5].
More suggestions(1)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com