Free Tools › Leave-One-Out Sensitivity Analysis
Find out whether a single study drives your meta-analysis. Re-run the pooled analysis with each study left out in turn and see which ones change the conclusion.
FreeNo account neededYour data stays in your browser
| Study | Events (treatment) | No event (treatment) | Events (control) | No event (control) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study omitted | Risk ratio [95% CI] | p | I² | τ² |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aronson 1948 | 0.49 [0.34, 0.71] | < 0.001 | 93% | 0.312 |
| Ferguson & Simes 1949 | 0.52 [0.36, 0.74] | < 0.001 | 92% | 0.300 |
| Rosenthal 1960 | 0.50 [0.35, 0.72] | < 0.001 | 93% | 0.309 |
| Hart & Sutherland 1977 | 0.54 [0.39, 0.74] | < 0.001 | 89% | 0.217 |
| Frimodt-Moller 1973 | 0.47 [0.32, 0.68] | < 0.001 | 93% | 0.326 |
| Stein & Aronson 1953 | 0.49 [0.33, 0.73] | < 0.001 | 91% | 0.383 |
| Vandiviere 1973 | 0.52 [0.36, 0.74] | < 0.001 | 92% | 0.301 |
| TPT Madras 1980 | 0.45 [0.33, 0.62] | < 0.001 | 84% | 0.211 |
| Coetzee & Berjak 1968 | 0.48 [0.33, 0.69] | < 0.001 | 93% | 0.327 |
| Rosenthal 1961 | 0.52 [0.36, 0.75] | < 0.001 | 92% | 0.295 |
| Comstock 1974 | 0.47 [0.31, 0.70] | < 0.001 | 93% | 0.388 |
| Comstock & Webster 1969 | 0.47 [0.33, 0.67] | < 0.001 | 93% | 0.309 |
| Comstock 1976 | 0.46 [0.32, 0.66] | < 0.001 | 93% | 0.318 |
| None (all 13 studies) | 0.49 [0.34, 0.70] | < 0.001 | 92% | 0.309 |
The pooled estimate stays within the overall 95% CI and keeps the same statistical significance whichever study is removed, so no single study drives the result.
2×2 counts or estimates with 95% CIs.
Random effects or fixed effect.
Rows in orange change significance or move outside the overall CI.
A leave-one-out (influence) analysis repeats the meta-analysis k times, omitting one study each time. If the pooled estimate and its significance stay similar, the result is robust; if removing one study changes the conclusion, that study is influential and should be discussed.
Sensitivity analyses like this are recommended by the Cochrane Handbook to check whether findings depend on arbitrary or unclear decisions, such as including a study at high risk of bias.
Give the range of pooled estimates across the omissions and name any study whose removal changes the conclusion.
Look for reasons such as risk of bias, population or dose, and present results with and without it. Do not simply drop it.