— Part 2 — “Meta-analysis provide the best strength of evidence about medical interventions: are you sure?”

Part 1

Published and unpublished agomelatine study registries - locations and estimated patient recruitment

Meta-analysis provide the best strength of evidence about medical interventions: are you sure?
August 11, 2014 (2nd Post in this chaotic blog)



Part 2

There are not enough real meta-analysis considering the scientific validity of methods used to collect and analyze the evidence.

A large number of publications reported as “meta-analysis” are just reports of systematic “cherry-picking” of the evidence (exclusion of trial registries and observational studies).

Too Much “Meta” – Many are Unreliable Studies –> Not Scientifically Valid

References

1. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews | BMJ 2014; 349

2. Publication bias in systematic reviews | Syst Rev 2014.

3. Interventional (i.e., clinical trials) vs. Observational (i.e., case-control, cohort, cross-sectional) studies: back to the future

4. (DRAFT) Hierarchical levels of different study designs: a critical analysis

5. Evidence Live 2015: Hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are incorrect

6. Controlled Clinical Trials

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: