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

Re:We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says ... by ekianjo on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @12:39AM (#12537113)

> Or perhaps just obtain the raw, patient-level data from said company and analyze the data ourselves?

Data can be faked, manipulated, unless you can trace it back to its origin and ensure it was recorded properly. There are multiple cases (even recent ones) where investigators modified the results of their trials in order to make them look better than they were.

Only replication can alleviate that concern.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says ... by Twisell on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @03:01AM (#12537690)

Though critical reading of raw data can reveal fake entry, witch is equally interesting.

I agree that replication will always be better and should ideally be mandatory. But meta-review is still way better than nothing.

And sometimes you just can't replicate for various reasons.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says ... by dangerlibrary on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @10:10AM (#12539594)

I don't think it's obvious that meta-review is better than nothing. It can lend credence to incorrect/fraudulent results, making actual replication appear less important.

[ Parent | on HN ]