A fixed-effect meta-analysis models the studies as estimating a common underlying treatment effect. In a generic inverse-variance version, independent log odds ratios have approximate distributions and are pooled with weights . The supplied forest plot instead has the Mantel–Haenszel pooled odds ratio weights: for event/nonevent cells and total , the normalized weights are proportional to . They reproduce the printed percentages and yield a pooled odds ratio about . This is still a common-effect analysis; the two weighting methods should not be silently identified.
A random-effects meta-analysis allows different true effects: with . The between-study heterogeneity variance adds to sampling variance, giving marginal variance . Its pooled estimate targets the mean of the study-effect distribution rather than one identical effect. Uncertainty about heterogeneity must also be considered.
The I-squared statistic of is a small estimate of excess variation on the heterogeneity scale. It does not mean that of studies are different, nor that this percentage of patients responds differently. The Cochran's Q statistic compares the observed variation with that expected from the studies' sampling errors; its approximate null distribution has five degrees of freedom here. A heterogeneity-test p-value of provides no rejection of the common-effect hypothesis.
The individual confidence intervals in the forest plot overlap substantially, although some point estimates are larger than others. Taken together, there is little evidence of between-study heterogeneity in these six studies. Neither the nonsignificant test nor the small I-squared statistic proves equal effects: with only six studies, detecting moderate heterogeneity can be difficult. A study being individually significant while another is not is also not itself a test of their difference.