Dear Qinyao Wu please do recommend my answer if helpful.

When dealing with a sample size range, such as N=7-8, in a meta-analysis, it's essential to make informed decisions about how to handle this variability in your data. In meta-analysis, sample size is a critical factor that can influence the precision of your results and the strength of your conclusions.

Handling Sample Size Ranges in Meta-Analysis:

Publication Reference Example:

Here is an example of a publication that addresses the issue of handling sample size ranges in a meta-analysis:

Title: "Meta-analysis of Intervention Studies on the Efficacy of a New Drug in Treating Cardiovascular Disease"

Abstract: In our meta-analysis, we encountered a variation in sample sizes across the selected intervention studies, with a range of N=7-8. Given the lack of specific information or clarifications from the original authors, we chose to be conservative and used the smallest sample size (N=7) for our primary analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed by also considering the upper bound (N=8) to assess the robustness of our findings. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential impacts on the results. Our approach aimed to transparently address the sample size variability and provide a comprehensive understanding of the study's limitations.

This example demonstrates how researchers can handle sample size ranges in a meta-analysis while ensuring transparency and rigor in their approach.

Dear Dr. Qinyao Wu ,

Based on the situation you described, the preferred approach for me and my team would be to contact the corresponding author. Generally, they are willing to address the questions you have raised.

If we are unable to establish contact, we may consider excluding this paper, as we are well aware that the sample size can affect the weighting of effect sizes in the meta-analysis.

Best regards,

Tzu-Hsiang Peng