Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence?
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 42 (4):497-507 (2011)
| 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. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,711 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSergi G. Costafreda (2012). Meta-Analysis, Mega-Analysis, and Task Analysis in fMRI Research. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 18 (4).
Werner Ehm (2005). Meta-Analysis O Mind-Matter Experiments: A Statistical Modeling Perspective. Mind and Matter 3 (1):85-132.
John PA Ioannidis (2008). Effectiveness of Antidepressants: An Evidence Myth Constructed From a Thousand Randomized Trials? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 3 (1):1-9.
Branden Fitelson & Richard Feldman (2012). Evidence of Evidence is Not (Necessarily) Evidence. Analysis 72 (1):85-88.
Herman Cappelen (2012). Philosophy Without Intuitions. Oxford University Press.
John A. Brierley & Christopher J. Cowton (2000). Putting Meta-Analysis to Work: Accountants' Organizational-Professional Conflict. Journal of Business Ethics 24 (4):343 - 353.
Jennifer C. Wright, Piper T. Grandjean & Cullen B. McWhite (forthcoming). The Meta-Ethical Grounding of Our Moral Beliefs: Evidence for Meta-Ethical Pluralism. Philosophical Psychology:1-26.
Peter C. Gøtzsche (2007). Rational Diagnosis and Treatment: Evidence-Based Clinical Decision-Making. J. Wiley.
Roy Sorensen (2004). Charity Implies Meta-Charity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):290–315.
Polycarp Ikuenobe (2002). The Meta-Ethical Issue of the Nature of Lying: Implications for Moral Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 21 (1):37-63.
David Hull (1992). Testing Philosophical Claims About Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:468 - 475.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-08-19Total downloads11 ( #99,698 of 551,119 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,341 of 551,119 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
