In evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews and meta-analyses lie on top of the hierarchy of evidence [1]. This holds true also in the field of cardiovascular medicine, with meta-analyses often influencing guidelines and clinical practice [2]. Unfortunately, most meta-analyses do not include enough information to be conclusive, mainly due to low power of the included trials and heterogeneity variance of the treatment effect across studies [3,4]. In addition, meta-analyses are subjected to statistical type I (i.e., spuriously significant results) and type II (i.e., falsely negative findings) errors, which are commonly accepted to the extent of 5 and 20 %, respectively.
