Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence?

Abstract

An astonishing volume and diversity of evidence is available for many hypotheses in the biomedical and social sciences. Some of this evidence-usually from randomized controlled trials (RCTs)-is amalgamated by meta-analysis. Despite the ongoing debate regarding whether or not RCTs are the 'gold-standard' of evidence, it is usually meta-analysis which is considered the best source of evidence: meta-analysis is thought by many to be the platinum standard of evidence. However, I argue that meta-analysis falls far short of that standard. Different meta-analyses of the same evidence can reach contradictory conclusions. Meta-analysis fails to provide objective grounds for intersubjective assessments of hypotheses because numerous decisions must be made when performing a meta-analysis which allow wide latitude for subjective idiosyncrasies to influence its outcome. I end by suggesting that an older tradition of evidence in medicine-the plurality of reasoning strategies appealed to by the epidemiologist Sir Bradford Hill-is a superior strategy for assessing a large volume and diversity of evidence.

Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment

“…In a similar vein, Stegenga and Howick et al . propose the development of evidence hierarchies by integrating them with the Bradford‐Hill criteria of causal assessment.…”

Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment

“…In a similar vein, Stegenga and Howick et al . propose the development of evidence hierarchies by integrating them with the Bradford‐Hill criteria of causal assessment.…”

Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using

“…Although the original DL model was mainly published in journals for high-performance coaches, due to its applicability to quite universally valid physical, chemical, cybernetic, and neurophysiological theories, a more general claim was made towards learning in general (for what?). Despite the strategy of structural replication studies based on the plurality of reasoning strategies [ 248 , 249 , 250 ] that are accompanied by greater heterogeneity than direct replication studies, a recent exploratory review that expects homogenous studies [ 251 ] provided further evidence for corroboration of the DL model. Thus, the comparison of the DL model with some later derived approaches that represent only subsets of the original model did not reveal any significant differences.…”

The need for robust critique of arts and health research: Dance‐movement therapy, girls, and depression

“…study 32 . Critical scrutiny of all the included research studies is undertaken using the Cochrane RoB Tool 19 . Most risk ratings for Jeong et al 32 .…”

Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment

“…In a similar vein, Stegenga and Howick et al . propose the development of evidence hierarchies by integrating them with the Bradford‐Hill criteria of causal assessment.…”

Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using

“…Although the original DL model was mainly published in journals for high-performance coaches, due to its applicability to quite universally valid physical, chemical, cybernetic, and neurophysiological theories, a more general claim was made towards learning in general (for what?). Despite the strategy of structural replication studies based on the plurality of reasoning strategies [ 248 , 249 , 250 ] that are accompanied by greater heterogeneity than direct replication studies, a recent exploratory review that expects homogenous studies [ 251 ] provided further evidence for corroboration of the DL model. Thus, the comparison of the DL model with some later derived approaches that represent only subsets of the original model did not reveal any significant differences.…”

The need for robust critique of arts and health research: Dance‐movement therapy, girls, and depression

“…study 32 . Critical scrutiny of all the included research studies is undertaken using the Cochrane RoB Tool 19 . Most risk ratings for Jeong et al 32 .…”

Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment

“…In a similar vein, Stegenga and Howick et al . propose the development of evidence hierarchies by integrating them with the Bradford‐Hill criteria of causal assessment.…”

Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using

“…Although the original DL model was mainly published in journals for high-performance coaches, due to its applicability to quite universally valid physical, chemical, cybernetic, and neurophysiological theories, a more general claim was made towards learning in general (for what?). Despite the strategy of structural replication studies based on the plurality of reasoning strategies [ 248 , 249 , 250 ] that are accompanied by greater heterogeneity than direct replication studies, a recent exploratory review that expects homogenous studies [ 251 ] provided further evidence for corroboration of the DL model. Thus, the comparison of the DL model with some later derived approaches that represent only subsets of the original model did not reveal any significant differences.…”

The need for robust critique of arts and health research: Dance‐movement therapy, girls, and depression

“…study 32 . Critical scrutiny of all the included research studies is undertaken using the Cochrane RoB Tool 19 . Most risk ratings for Jeong et al 32 .…”