Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Dolphin, Jul 20, 2015.
One issues I can see with meta-analyses and systematic reviews is quite often they are done by people from the field who have a reasonably good idea what the evidence is already.
They can then focus on outcome measures for their favourite interventions that they know came out well (or alternatively on outcome measures that don't suit interventions they don't favour).
So in the ME/CFS, CBT and GET meta-analyses might focus on fatigue scores and (self-reported) physical functioning and these results can look impressive but if other outcome measures are looked at, the evidence isn't so impressive.
Here are some sourses about the downside of meta analysis. I think the following are just some of the important points. The article also talks about John Ioannidis. Bold is mine.
I will try and post some other sources but it will have to be tomorrow as I am having one of my worst day of fogginess and don't want to repeat what others have or will be saying. Hope, I haven't done that with this article.
I wonder how much my fog has to do with laughing so hard from a certain thread. Worth it if it was. But who knows? Maybe we should do a meta analysis of how many others had this happen. Oh wait, it won't be valid.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.