Dr.GutHealth said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.

Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to:

1. Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) — center of the diamond
2. Confidence interval width — precision of the estimate
3. I² statistic — heterogeneity across studies
4. Individual study weights — are results driven by one large trial?
5. Prediction interval — range of plausible true effects in future settings

The the trial evidence meta-analysis shows a pooled RR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.88), I²=46%. This is a robust and consistent effect.

Dr.Martinez said:

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.