4 ms·
But Cochrane reviews are notoriously good. They're always spoken of as the standard in meta-analysis. What's interesting here is that new research is contradict
by neonate 7y ago
But Cochrane reviews are notoriously good. They're always spoken of as the standard in meta-analysis. What's interesting here is that new research is contradicting previous findings.
According to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/upshot/alcoholics-anonymous-new-evidence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/upshot/alcoholics-anonymo..., the weak studies they weeded out were ones that had found against AA, not in favor of it.
- JamesBarney 7y agoIt is, but even if the review is done really well garbage in/garbage out.
- neonate 7y agoThe 2006 Cochrane Collaboration review was based on just eight studies, and ended with a call for more research to assess the program’s efficacy. In the intervening years, researchers answered the call. The newer review also applied standards that weeded out some weaker studies that drove earlier findings. In the last decade or so, researchers have published a number of very high-quality randomized trials and quasi-experiments. Of the 27 studies in the new review, 21 have randomized designs. Together, these flip the conclusion. (from that NYT link)
- JamesBarney 7y agoThanks, you're right I didn't look into this enough.