We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says John Ioannidis

Re:We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says ... by jmde on Monday September 19, 2016 @11:36PM (#12536840)

Then you have to summarize those replications and decide whether or not the replication studies replicated findings... which means meta-analysis.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says ... by ekianjo on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @12:41AM (#12537118)

No, you don't need to do meta-analysis. Without combining the results of multiple trials together, you can see if an observed effect in one trial is found in other trials through independent analysis.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says ... by Fomite on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @04:59PM (#12552187)

But explaining whether or not "We didn't get the same answer" is the result of variation in the effect estimate, or because of a genuine failure to replicate, is one aspect of meta-analysis.

The purpose of meta-analysis goes beyond pooling. Indeed, one of the first steps in meta-analysis is "Is pooling even a good idea?"

[ Parent | on HN ]