• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses aren’t immune to bias

D

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
"Science’s arbiter of disputes, the meta-analysis, is falling prey to bias”

By Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus


...”In a new paper, John Ioannidis, of Stanford University, argues that scientists are being deluged with a “massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses.”Rather than present objective evidence, these articles are afflicted with the very illness — assumptions, biases, and wishful thinking — that they ostensibly try to filter out, he says.”​




Retraction Watch did a Q and A with Ioannidis about his paper:
"We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says John Ioannidis”


the full paper:

The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
 
D

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
The Ioannidis article is referred to in

"Mass production of review articles is cause for concern

A torrent of low-quality meta-analyses and systematic reviews in biomedicine might be hiding valuable research and misleading scientists.
A gold standard of scientific analysis is fast becoming tarnished, according to a report by a leading meta-researcher.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses distil scientific articles on similar questions into what is meant to be an authoritative take on a particular topic — often how well a particular treatment works across medical settings — and they are key tools in evidence-based medicine."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.