The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses

Ioannidis, John P. A.

doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210

Cited by 1,096 publications

(1,005 citation statements)

References 113 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

917

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, in our sample we included 12 meta-analyses about the cognitive abilities in schizophrenia patients. This can be a sign of redundancy in the meta-analyses that are produced in this field, as has been found in medicine research (Ioannidis, 2016).…”

Section: Effect Sizes In Intelligence Researchmentioning

confidence: 88%

Research on Research: A Meta-Scientific Study of Problems and Solutions in Psychological Science

Nuijten¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION: Psychology is facing a “replication crisis”. Many psychological findings could not be replicated in novel samples, which lead to the growing concern that many published findings are overly optimistic or even false. In this dissertation, we investigated potential indicators of problems in the published psychological literature. In Part I of this dissertation, we looked at inconsistencies in reported statistical results in published psychology papers. To facilitate our research, we developed the free tool statcheck; a “spellchecker” for statistics. In Part II, we investigated bias in published effect sizes. We showed that in the presence of publication bias, the overestimation of effects can become worse if you combine studies. Indeed, in meta-analyses from the social sciences we found strong evidence that published effects are overestimated. These are worrying findings, and it is important to think about concrete solutions to improve the quality of psychological research. Some of the solutions we propose are preregistration, replication, and transparency. We argue that to select the best strategies to improve psychological science, we need research on research: meta-research.

show abstract

Section: Effect Sizes In Intelligence Researchmentioning

confidence: 88%

Research on Research: A Meta-Scientific Study of Problems and Solutions in Psychological Science

Nuijten¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent review of systematic reviews generated by a national knowledge centre to inform policymaking in Norway showed that in most cases, the evidence base addressed only a fraction of relevant policy questions 40. More generally, there is growing evidence that the science of systematic reviews is becoming increasingly distorted by commercial and other conflicts of interest, leading to reviews, which—often despite ticking the boxes on various quality checklists—are unnecessary, misleading or partisan 19, 41. The holy grail of a comprehensive database of unambiguous and unbiased evidence summaries (in pursuit of which the Cochrane Collaboration was founded42) continues to recede into the future.…”

Section: Systematic or Narrative Or Systematic And Narrative?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

Greenhalgh

Thorne

Malterud

2018

Eur J Clin Investigation

534

437

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…From a research perspective, systematic reviews with MA are traditionally performed following the availability of evidence from RCTs and PERs, although the pressure for publication and the general perception of a free‐from‐bias evidence‐based study may generate massive production of unnecessary (redundant) research 68, 69, 70…”

Section: Observational Research: What Is Next?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Observational research on sodium glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors: A real breakthrough?

Raschi

Poluzzi

Fadini

et al. 2018

Diabetes Obesity Metabolism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sodium glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors have attracted the interest of the scientific community following the results from dedicated cardiovascular outcome trials, which demonstrated remarkable reduction in all‐cause mortality and other cardiovascular (CV) endpoints with empagliflozin and canagliflozin. These impressive results raised further expectations on real world data from large observational cohort studies. They were designed to address the possible existence of a class effect, and the uncertainty on whether this benefit can be extended from secondary to primary CV prevention of patients with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we collated data from existing observational studies (including the celebrated CVD‐REAL cohorts) and critically appraised results and methodological issues with the aim of providing clinical insight, including unsettled aspects, and proposing a research agenda for future investigations.

show abstract

The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses

Abstract: The production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has reached epidemic proportions. Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta-analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted.

Cited by 1,096 publications

References 113 publications

Research on Research: A Meta-Scientific Study of Problems and Solutions in Psychological Science

Research on Research: A Meta-Scientific Study of Problems and Solutions in Psychological Science

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

Observational research on sodium glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors: A real breakthrough?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About