if anything meta-analyses continue to abstract away from questionable data. Where summary-data-alone meta-analyses calculate an overall effect size by mixing together individual flawed studies that don't publish data, it gets harder and harder for users to detect issues.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Meta-analyses create bigger piles of re-issued garbage.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What, are they assuming the bias of one will cancel out the bias of another?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I mean, technically, it can. It can also amplify issues in the underlying research. It depends.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It all comes down to the fact that the conspiracy theorists saw a (bad) meta-analysis that agreed with their position on ivermectin, and now that has become a sacred cow.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think they fixate on the idea that meta-analysis can smooth out heterogeneous issues with individual studies and forget that bias can be (and usually is) systematic across wide swathes of studies.
-
Sure. They seem to think that smoothing out randomness in studies that don't have a high degree of bias is the same thing as eliminating bias. Again, garbage in, garbage out. Meta-analysis can't magically turn a bunch of turds into a gold ingot.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
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.