Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence?
- PMID:22035723
- DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.003
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.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
- Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, Hirsch JA.Manchikanti L, et al.Pain Physician. 2009 Sep-Oct;12(5):819-50.Pain Physician. 2009.PMID:19787009
- Factorial design provides evidence to guide practice of anaesthesia.Korttila K, Apfel CC.Korttila K, et al.Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2005 Aug;49(7):927-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2005.00622.x.Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2005.PMID:16045652
- The role of meta-analysis in monitoring clinical trials.Begg CB.Begg CB.Stat Med. 1996 Jun 30;15(12):1299-306; discussion 1307-11. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960630)15:12<1299::AID-SIM311>3.0.CO;2-A.Stat Med. 1996.PMID:8817803Review.
- Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.LeLorier J, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F.LeLorier J, et al.N Engl J Med. 1997 Aug 21;337(8):536-42. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199708213370806.N Engl J Med. 1997.PMID:9262498
- A review of evidence-based medicine and meta-analytic reviews in migraine.Tfelt-Hansen P.Tfelt-Hansen P.Cephalalgia. 2006 Nov;26(11):1265-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2006.01194.x.Cephalalgia. 2006.PMID:17059433Review.
Cited by
- Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using.Schöllhorn WI, Rizzi N, Slapšinskaitė-Dackevičienė A, Leite N.Schöllhorn WI, et al.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan 9;19(2):711. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19020711.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022.PMID:35055533Free PMC article.Review.
- The need for "gentle medicine" in a post Covid-19 world.Andrade G, Redondo MC.Andrade G, et al.Med Health Care Philos. 2021 Dec;24(4):475-486. doi: 10.1007/s11019-021-10046-z. Epub 2021 Aug 20.Med Health Care Philos. 2021.PMID:34415502Free PMC article.Review.
- Need for a nutrition-specific scientific paradigm for research quality improvement.Flanagan A, Bradfield J, Kohlmeier M, Ray S.Flanagan A, et al.BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2023 Jul 14;6(2):383-391. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2023-000650. eCollection 2023.BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2023.PMID:38618553Free PMC article.Review.
- Safety vs. efficacy assessment of pharmaceuticals: Epistemological rationales and methods.Osimani B.Osimani B.Prev Med Rep. 2014 Aug 26;1:9-13. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2014.08.002. eCollection 2014.Prev Med Rep. 2014.PMID:26844033Free PMC article.
- From Discovery to Justification: Outline of an Ideal Research Program in Empirical Psychology.Witte EH, Zenker F.Witte EH, et al.Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 27;8:1847. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01847. eCollection 2017.Front Psychol. 2017.PMID:29163256Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources