"When I conducted a subgroup meta-analysis comparing hospital-based and community-based settings, I found that the pooled effect was statistically significant in the community-based setting, but not significant in the hospital-based setting. However, the test for subgroup differences (i.e., the between-group comparison) was not statistically significant. Why did this happen, and how should I interpret it?"
It depends on the subgroup difference test results!
If this test is significant (p < 0.05) that means the evidence of the intervention effect truly differs between subgroups. If not, you should be cautious (because the subgroup analysis explores heterogeneity), the apparent difference may just be due to random error. For instance, if one group is significant and the test for subgroup difference is also significant, this supports a true subgroup effect. I hope that helps!
Regarding your situation, there is no clear evidence of a true difference between settings. The difference may be due to differences in sample size or study designs…etc.
In your results:
Community: significant effect.
Hospital: non-significant effect.
Subgroup test: non-significant.
Correct interpretation: you cannot claim that the effect is different depending on the context; the evidence is simply more precise in one group and less so in the other.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Entomology
- Resistance