I've heard that meta-analytical needs are actually a good argument for using confidence intervals in most applicable figures. Could someone explain this to a non-statistician?
I suppose it has something to do with the fact that CIs can be interpreted the same way regardless of n, unlike Standard Errors.
I understand that using CIs would encourage meta-analytical thinking. Meta-papers usually present a figure that contains all of the individual results from several studies, as well as a pooled estimate, like in this effect size -figure I found off Google...
But can confidence interval figures alone (with just the point estimator and the CIs), without access to more data, somehow be used for meta-analytical synthesis? Can you somehow combine the information in these figures from several studies into a single new figure, thus creating a figure with narrower CIs?
Therefore, are these figures intrinsically advantageous, or is the argument for using CIs mainly that they discourage unnecessary null hypothesis significance testing?