Talk:Forest plot

For(r)est

I don't get the note on the origin. How can it be true that the name originated in 1996 but Peto was joking about it in 1990? Am I missing something here? Thanks. 138.37.199.206 19:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Bondegezou 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I think that the image could be redrawn to be more informative. Typically the diamond used to represent the summary measure of effect is drawn such that its left and right points represent the 95% confident intervals on that measure. It is also common to list the study names to the right or left of the individual study lines. Anyone willing to draw update the diagram to reflect these points?Jimjamjak (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC) ~~:So, I tried to draw an improved diagram, but can't work out how to add it to the page. This is the location I uploaded it to.~~ (I found out how to do this.Jimjamjak (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have real forest plots of real data, like the Cochrane logo in the see-also. HLHJ (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that a mathematical diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Representing the summary

The way the summary of the meta-analysis is current represented is not clear:

The overall meta-analysed measure of effect is often represented on the plot as a vertical line.

This meta-analysed measure of effect is commonly plotted as a diamond

A vertical line representing no effect is also plotted.

So the result is plotted as a diamond and a vertical line. The vertical line represents both the result and no effect. - I'm guessing the result-as-vertical-line comment is incorrect, but I'm not confident enough to remove it. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The result line is typically dashed and I have edited the article to that effect. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of forest plot

The first sentence is complicated to read, and it also restricts forest plots to treatment effects. As the text below it shows, forest plots aren't only used in meta-analyses of treatments.

There's an accurate short definition of forest plot here in this open access glossary.

How about: A forest plot (or blobbogram) is a graphical display of estimates of results from multiple scientific studies addressing the same question, with a combination of the overall results. Ping User:Doc_James Hildabast (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure done. Let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Doc_James Hildabast (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example

I don't care much for the example. Not only are there dead links in there, but the detail is extraneous related to the epidemiology/clinical significance of the meta-analysis in the context of this article. I would personally prefer if this were removed, as I don't think it helps the reader to understand what a forest plot is, how it is made or how it is interpreted. Additionally, the idea that a forest plot can demonstrate that "no more studies are necessary" is--to my mind--incorrect.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find examples useful and this example was an iconic part of the spread of meta-analysis. We should certainly seek to fix dead links. (You can tag these and they'll get fixed quicker.) The conclusion to be drawn from the forest plot is referenced. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]