It’s amazing how the current debates bring people who profess that they believe in science to reject core ideas of the enlightment about science not being about believing authority and attack modern tools of evidence-based medicine like meta-reviews as flawed.
Meta-reviews were an invention 1-2 decades ago, to have a better tool then just authority-based judgements of how to summarize literature.
I have seen peer-reviewed meta analysis on ivermectin getting rejected because they differ with statements from authorities like the CDC which feels like rolling back the progress of the last two decades.
It used to be that on Skeptics.SE the idea that medical claims should be decided by peer-reviewed papers was accepted.
It’s amazing how the current debates bring people who profess that they believe in science to reject core ideas of the enlightment about science not being about believing authority and attack modern tools of evidence-based medicine like meta-reviews as flawed.
Can you present an example of what you were thinking about here?
Meta-reviews were an invention 1-2 decades ago, to have a better tool then just authority-based judgements of how to summarize literature.
I have seen peer-reviewed meta analysis on ivermectin getting rejected because they differ with statements from authorities like the CDC which feels like rolling back the progress of the last two decades.
It used to be that on Skeptics.SE the idea that medical claims should be decided by peer-reviewed papers was accepted.