Chart of the Decade: Why You Shouldn’t Trust Every Scientific Study You See

Re:Chart of the Decade: Why You Shouldn’t Trust Every Scient... by shoguning on Thursday November 08, 2018 @05:15PM (#18410550)

Agreed, further:

>every significant clinical study of drugs and dietary supplements for the treatment or prevention of cardiovascular disease between 1974 and 2012

There is room for a lot of bias when selecting which studies are 'significant' and on topic. Not to mention deciding which metric to report from the study.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chart of the Decade: Why You Shouldn’t Trust Every Scient... by capnrefsmmat on Thursday November 08, 2018 @08:32PM (#18411713)

Their procedure was carefully documented, including the inclusion criteria and how exactly they categorized the studies. They even had two teams independently search the literature to find studies meeting the criteria: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Literature reviews in meta-analyses are usually conducted like this, with specified lists of search keywords and flow charts of inclusion criteria.

[ Parent | on HN ]