Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Why most published meta-analysis findings are false

Doleman, B.; Williams, J. P.; Lund, J.

Authors

B. Doleman

J. P. Williams

JONATHAN LUND JON.LUND@NOTTINGHAM.AC.UK
Clinical Associate Professor



Abstract

Almost a decade after the controversial paper ‘why most published research findings are false’ was written [1], we re-visit this concern with regard to published meta-analyses. Although reading the title of this article may make some pause for thought (or vehemently disagree), if you simply subscribe to the findings of Ioannidis’s paper then the logical conclusion is that the meta-analyses of primary studies are equally susceptible to being false. Indeed, it was asserted in the paper that meta-analyses of small, inconclusive studies (very common) are probably false [1]. But how can this be when meta-analyses sit unchallenged at the top of the hierarchy of evidence (despite being retrospective and observational in nature)? We will first examine the evidence for our assertion, and then provide reasons why meta-analyses are poor predictors of results from large trials gained from the authors’ experience in perioperative meta-analyses.

Citation

Doleman, B., Williams, J. P., & Lund, J. (2019). Why most published meta-analysis findings are false. Techniques in Coloproctology, 23(9), 925-928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02020-y

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Jun 17, 2019
Online Publication Date Jun 25, 2019
Publication Date Sep 1, 2019
Deposit Date Jan 6, 2020
Journal Techniques in Coloproctology
Print ISSN 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN 1128-045X
Publisher Springer Nature
Peer Reviewed Not Peer Reviewed
Volume 23
Issue 9
Pages 925-928
DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02020-y
Keywords Surgery; Gastroenterology
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/3525406
Publisher URL https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10151-019-02020-y