Something that I keep seeing pop up is the idea that meta-analysis somehow eliminates issues with the underlying research This is just confusingly incorrect
-
-
This is also where the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" comes from. If your meta-analysis includes numbers from studies that are terrible, the final point estimate is as meaningless as my graph above on the Olympics
Show this thread -
Some people think meta-analysis is impressive because it involves fancy statistical software, but it's entirely possible to implement a Dersimonian-Laird inverse-variance model in Excel with a stats textbook and a few hours of time
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Counterexample: https://www.cochrane.org/CD001855/INJ_wearing-a-helmet-dramatically-reduces-the-risk-of-head-and-facial-injuries-for-bicyclists-involved-in-a-crash-even-if-it-involves-a-motor-vehicle … They mostly cited themselves and excluded better longitudinal studies in favour of their own study design. Oh and the DOI is broken.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.