Quantifying replicability in systematic reviews: the r-value
In order to assess the effect of a health care intervention, it is useful to look at an ensemble of relevant studies. The Cochrane Collaboration's admirable goal is to provide systematic reviews of all relevant clinical studies, in order to establish whether or not there is a conclusive evidence about a specific intervention. This is done mainly by conducting a meta-analysis: a statistical synthesis of results from a series of systematically collected studies. Health practitioners often interpret a significant meta-analysis summary effect as a statement that the treatment effect is consistent across a series of studies. However, the meta-analysis significance may be driven by an effect in only one of the studies. Indeed, in an analysis of two domains of Cochrane reviews we show that in a non-negligible fraction of reviews, the removal of a single study from the meta-analysis of primary endpoints makes the conclusion non-significant. Therefore, reporting the evidence towards replicability of the effect across studies in addition to the significant meta-analysis summary effect will provide credibility to the interpretation that the effect was replicated across studies. We suggest an objective, easily computed quantity, we term the r-value, that quantifies the extent of this reliance on single studies. We suggest adding the r-values to the main results and to the forest plots of systematic reviews.