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
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @GidMK
That’s a straw man. No one says it eliminates all issues with underlying research. The argument is that it can help account for variations in things like dosage and methods. Large scale crts are also worthless if you give the thousands of participants the wrong dosage.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chad_senger
That's simply not something that meta-analysis can do. It does not account for variation in dosage and methods, all it does is weight studies by their variance and provide a weighted mean/median
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Are you saying that a single study with a single treatment method can account for variability in treatment as well as a meta-analysis of many studies with different treatment methods?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chad_senger
While there are some exceptions, in almost every situation putting many studies with divergent treatment methods into a single meta-analytic model gives you an entirely meaningless result
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Think of it like an average (because it essentially is one) - if one study measured weight, another height, and yet another blood pressure, averaging the results from them all would give you a number with narrow confidence intervals that had literally no meaning
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.