"Ahmed Bayoumi and Pamela Leece, who wrote one of two critical reviews that led to the meta-analysis’s retraction, noted that the meta-analysis combined outcomes for mortality, drug-related crimes, sharing of drug equipment, and problematic drug use — even though each of these outcomes could be affected differently by a supervised consumption site.
But I can't find the review itself.
In an era of questionable social science, retracting for bad methods seems defensible, but arguably this should just be not cited on account of being inapplicable. The emotionality of the issue makes that hard--if not retracted, it will go on to be bad evidence for things it doesn't say. People seem to have a pretty low bar for what passes as a judgement on supervised consumption sites.
“Accordingly, that estimate of effect has no practical public health or policy implications,” Bayoumi and Leece concluded.
Many of the problems are detailed in "Supervised consumption sites: a nuanced assessment of the causal evidence."
It mentions the reason for retraction, something about "pooling diverse outcomes into a composite measure," anyone have a link to the actual details of the retraction other than that it wasn't for fraud?