Skip to main content
idapt
HomeCodeAI ModelsPricing
Sign inStart free
  • Home
  • Pricing
  • AI Models
  • Image models
  • Voice models
  • Video models
  • Rankings
  • New models
  • Model status
  • Multi-Model Chat
  • Voice Mode
  • Voice HUD
  • Web Search
  • Image Generation
  • Video Generation
  • Audio Generation
  • Transcription
  • Drive
  • Credentials
  • Sharing
  • Workspaces
  • Tasks
  • Memory
  • Agents
  • Subagents
  • Automations
  • Skills
  • idapt Code
  • Code Execution
  • Computers
  • Computer Use
  • Computer Assist · Soon
  • Containers
  • Cloud Computers
  • Local AI
  • AI Gateway
  • API & SDK
  • CLI
  • MCP
  • Tunnels
  • All features →
  • LLM cost calculator
  • Token counter
  • Context window checker
  • Can I run it
  • Model picker quiz
  • Savings finder
  • Video cost estimator
  • Text to speech cost
  • Transcription cost
  • API endpoint tester
  • All free tools →
  • Blog
  • Use cases
  • Comparisons
  • Best of
  • Skills
  • Learn
  • Changelog
  • Help center
  • FAQ
  • Privacy
  • Compare all models
  • Support
  • idapt Code
  • Developers
  • Quickstarts
  • API reference
  • API pricing
  • CLI
  • MCP
  • Downloads
  • Desktop
  • Badges and embeds
© idapt[email protected]TermsPrivacy PolicyLegal noticeReport content
X (Twitter)
All skills
Research

Run a meta analysis

Effect sizes pooled properly, with heterogeneity and bias examined.

Fill it in

Population, intervention, comparator and outcome.

Pooling incomparable studies produces a confident wrong number.

A funnel plot and what it suggests.

Your prompt

Run the synthesis.

[the question]

Write the inclusion criteria BEFORE screening, and report the numbers at each
stage. A synthesis where the criteria emerged during screening has chosen its
result, and the flow diagram is what shows it did not.

Extract effect sizes with their variances, and say what you did about studies
reporting different measures.

Examine heterogeneity properly and say what it means. Pooling studies that are not
measuring the same thing produces a precise number about nothing, and a high I
squared with a confident summary estimate is the classic failure.

A funnel plot and what its asymmetry suggests, without overclaiming from a small
number of studies.
Forest plot, with weights visible.
Use Run a meta analysisOpens with everything above already filled in.

Why this works

A high heterogeneity statistic with a confident summary estimate is the classic failure: a precise number about nothing. This writes inclusion criteria before screening, reports the flow, examines heterogeneity, and checks for publication bias.

More research skills

  • Search the web
  • Ask multiple models
  • Compare two models

Use it now in a chat in 1 click

Use Run a meta analysis
  • Deep research
  • Fact-check a claim
  • Cite sources properly