Heterogeneity in Meta-Analyses: When Studies Point in Different Directions
I-squared tells you how much of a pooled result rests on studies that genuinely disagree. Here is how to read it before you trust the headline number.
Research
New discoveries and studies with professor/expert commentary — 'профессура и экспертность' vertical
Peer Review Explained: Who Checks the Science?
Before a study reaches a journal, a handful of unpaid experts read it closely. Here is what they can catch, and what they cannot.
Surrogate Endpoints: When a Trial Measures a Stand-In Instead of the Outcome You Care About
Trials often track cholesterol, tumor shrinkage or blood sugar instead of death, fractures or survival — the stand-in usually works, but history records the exceptions.
“50% Higher Risk”: Relative vs Absolute Risk in Health News
Relative risk makes small dangers look enormous and big benefits look magical; converting to absolute numbers takes one minute and changes every conclusion.
FDA Approval vs 510(k) Clearance: Two Words That Sound Alike and Mean Different Things
A cleared device reached the market by demonstrating similarity to a decades-old predicate; an approved drug faced clinical trials — knowing which word your product carries changes its evidentiary weight.
How to Read a Meta-Analysis: What Pooling Studies Can and Cannot Fix
Meta-analyses sit at the top of the evidence pyramid, but pooling inherits every flaw of the studies it combines — heterogeneity, publication bias and garbage in.