3 ms·

> The increase (in the number of meta-analyses) is a consequence of the higher prestige that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have acquired over the years,

> The increase (in the number of meta-analyses) is a consequence of the higher prestige that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have acquired over the years, since they are (justifiably) considered to represent the highest level of evidence No. The increase is because it is cheaper to do meta-analysis that it is to design and conduct experiments. They also carry less reputational risk.

tokai 10y ago
Review articles do tend to get a higher number of citations that standard papers. That could be another motive.
Fomite 10y ago
There are other, non-nefarious reasons. 1. They make excellent student projects. Part of this is cheapness, sure, but part of it is that meta-analysis can be done relatively quickly. Some observational studies will take years to complete - in the meantime, your Masters student needs something to do. 2. They are often "Step 1" of a number of study designs. For example, if one is eliciting priors for a Bayesian analysis, or in my case trying to parameterize a theoretical model, "Is there a meta-analysis on this, and if not, can we do one?" is one of the first questions asked. 3. It allows participation in a field. For example, I have thoughts about some aspects of clinical medicine. I am unlikely to ever run a clinical trial, what with not having a position in a medical school. I can however perform a meta-analysis of trial data as well (or possibly better) than the people performing the studies. Running a study and conducting a meta-analysis are not necessarily the same skill set.
- golemotron 10y ago
  > There are other, non-nefarious reasons. Cost is a nefarious reason?
  - Fomite 10y ago
    There's an undertone in this thread that meta-analysis is just what you do if you can't run a study. I wanted to note that there are scientific reasons to perform one in addition to logistic ones.

tokai 10y ago

Review articles do tend to get a higher number of citations that standard papers. That could be another motive.

Fomite 10y ago

There are other, non-nefarious reasons. 1. They make excellent student projects. Part of this is cheapness, sure, but part of it is that meta-analysis can be done relatively quickly. Some observational studies will take years to complete - in the meantime, your Masters student needs something to do. 2. They are often "Step 1" of a number of study designs. For example, if one is eliciting priors for a Bayesian analysis, or in my case trying to parameterize a theoretical model, "Is there a meta-analysis on this, and if not, can we do one?" is one of the first questions asked. 3. It allows participation in a field. For example, I have thoughts about some aspects of clinical medicine. I am unlikely to ever run a clinical trial, what with not having a position in a medical school. I can however perform a meta-analysis of trial data as well (or possibly better) than the people performing the studies. Running a study and conducting a meta-analysis are not necessarily the same skill set.

golemotron 10y ago
> There are other, non-nefarious reasons. Cost is a nefarious reason?
- Fomite 10y ago
  There's an undertone in this thread that meta-analysis is just what you do if you can't run a study. I wanted to note that there are scientific reasons to perform one in addition to logistic ones.