Journal of clinical epidemiology
-
The paper discusses some of the most common criticisms to meta-analysis presented by Professor Feinstein in this Conference. As many of the points raised in his contributions are not new, a critique to them is presented in the context of the type of contribution given by systematic reviews (meta-analysis) to the analysis of the effects of health care interventions. After discussing some terminological issues, the paper challenges Feinsteins' arguments indicating that meta-analysis is inherently faulted on four grounds: (a) reproducibility, (b) precision, (c) suitable extrapolation, (d) fair comparison. Each point is discussed providing examples drawn from the published literature with a view to indicate that--despite their current limitations--systematic reviews are a necessary step to synthesize information, orient clinical research and help produce practice guidelines.
-
Research review has long been one of the most important scholarly activities in all branches of science. While there is sometimes a single study so well-designed, well carried out, and difficult to replicate that its findings are accepted as conclusive, more often there are many studies on a given topic, no one of which clearly supersedes the others. ⋯ They may arrive at different conclusions. When this is the case, there is a need for reviewers to carefully consider the evidence and to put forth conclusions or hypotheses about where the weight of the evidence lies.