This study examines the underreporting of prediction intervals in meta-analyses within sports medicine. The authors screened 1500 meta-analysis studies published between 2012 and 2022 in highly ranked sports medicine and medical journals, focusing on those using a random effect model. They found that only 1.7% of sports medicine studies and 3.9% of medical studies reported prediction intervals. For the 220 sports medicine studies that could calculate prediction intervals, 60% had discrepancies between the reported confidence interval and the calculated prediction interval, with prediction intervals being 3.4 times wider than confidence intervals. The study concludes that the widespread misinterpretation of random effect meta-analyses could lead to the use of treatments lacking sufficient evidence or potentially harmful treatments. The authors recommend that journals mandate the reporting of prediction intervals to improve the transparency and reliability of meta-analyses in sports medicine.This study examines the underreporting of prediction intervals in meta-analyses within sports medicine. The authors screened 1500 meta-analysis studies published between 2012 and 2022 in highly ranked sports medicine and medical journals, focusing on those using a random effect model. They found that only 1.7% of sports medicine studies and 3.9% of medical studies reported prediction intervals. For the 220 sports medicine studies that could calculate prediction intervals, 60% had discrepancies between the reported confidence interval and the calculated prediction interval, with prediction intervals being 3.4 times wider than confidence intervals. The study concludes that the widespread misinterpretation of random effect meta-analyses could lead to the use of treatments lacking sufficient evidence or potentially harmful treatments. The authors recommend that journals mandate the reporting of prediction intervals to improve the transparency and reliability of meta-analyses in sports medicine.