A new study found that completely eliminating meat from one’s diet may significantly reduce the risk of developing cancer, with figures reaching up to 45% less risk for some cancers compared to those…
If the meta-analysis is based on studies with flawed methodology and/or assumptions, then the meta-analysis itself will be of little value. Is that not the case?
When a systematic review and meta-analysis is published (a meta-analysis is usually a component of the systematic review), methodologies are taken into account. It isn’t just mindlessly throwing studies into a hydraulic press and fusing them together. For example, I can show you a 2017 systematic review (not a meta-analysis, but again, these usually come in one package) exploring possible links between managed bees and: 1) competition with native bees, 2) effect on fauna populations, and 3) pathogen transmission.
It’s open-access if you want to read it, and over and over again the authors grill the methodology of the studies they’re reviewing. They basically say “hey, the studies say this, but their collective methodologies are too weak, and so further, more robust studies need to be done.” If they were just going by the studies ignoring methodology, they probably would’ve concluded managed bees are harmful to the ecosystem. But they couldn’t because scientists care deeply about methodology. That’s a major part of synthesizing scientific literature.
If the meta-analysis is based on studies with flawed methodology and/or assumptions, then the meta-analysis itself will be of little value. Is that not the case?
When a systematic review and meta-analysis is published (a meta-analysis is usually a component of the systematic review), methodologies are taken into account. It isn’t just mindlessly throwing studies into a hydraulic press and fusing them together. For example, I can show you a 2017 systematic review (not a meta-analysis, but again, these usually come in one package) exploring possible links between managed bees and: 1) competition with native bees, 2) effect on fauna populations, and 3) pathogen transmission.
It’s open-access if you want to read it, and over and over again the authors grill the methodology of the studies they’re reviewing. They basically say “hey, the studies say this, but their collective methodologies are too weak, and so further, more robust studies need to be done.” If they were just going by the studies ignoring methodology, they probably would’ve concluded managed bees are harmful to the ecosystem. But they couldn’t because scientists care deeply about methodology. That’s a major part of synthesizing scientific literature.