- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 888
Is a systematic review or meta analysis paper worthless if almost all the studies that it's comparing have different number of outcomes assessed, follow up length, criteria of bias assessment, and protocols (for example different stimuli to assess pain)?
Could you help me figure out if this paper using meta analysis with standard mean difference is garbage because the studies that comprise the meta analysis are almost all garbage? I'm I'm following the rationale that the whole is only as great as the sum of its parts.
http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/90/3/304.full.pdf html
Also, on a more unrelated note, is conducting a meta analysis really easy and cheap to do? It seems all you need are a couple of statisticians familiar with the topic of the clinical trials involved.
Could you help me figure out if this paper using meta analysis with standard mean difference is garbage because the studies that comprise the meta analysis are almost all garbage? I'm I'm following the rationale that the whole is only as great as the sum of its parts.
http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/90/3/304.full.pdf html
Also, on a more unrelated note, is conducting a meta analysis really easy and cheap to do? It seems all you need are a couple of statisticians familiar with the topic of the clinical trials involved.
Last edited:
