One example is where a meta-analysis includes key fraudulent/plagiarized primary studies.
I intend to agree with Ian. However, it is a solution with lots of efforts: over time more than one included study might be withdrawn and then the meta-analysis should be reexamined every time this unfortunate situation occurs. It might be complicated as well. How do we know that every reader of the meta-analysis and user of its results is effectively informed that the meta-analysis was modified? Could a central database with meta-analyses help? Everyone can consult this databse and use the latest version. In an ideal case all publications as spin-off of the former version of the meta-analysis should be reeamined as well. It is not that easy, it looks like real life .........
I think every modification in any study, mainly Systematic Review and Meatanalysis should be spread at any time it occurs. In addition I also think, such as is systematized by Cochrane Colaboration, that type of study need a periodical reexamination about old and new possibilities are included or withdraw of them.
Maybe the answer is only to have continually updated on-line reviews and papers? Like the BBC news site is always up to date when you visit it?
A recent study [1] found that 46% of all meta-analysis publications had conclusions altered by publications with falsified data. The authors state that falsified data can affect subsequent meta-analyses and any resulting clinical or policy changes resulting from the findings of these studies.
Article Evaluation of the Inclusion of Studies Identified by the FDA...
1. Garmendia CA, Nassar Gorra L, Rodriguez AL, Trepka MJ, Veledar E, Madhivanan P. Evaluation of the Inclusion of Studies Identified by the FDA as Having Falsified Data in the Results of Meta-analyses: The Example of the Apixaban Trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(4):582–584. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7661
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis