@article{ref1,
title="Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence?",
journal="Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences",
year="2011",
author="Stegenga, Jacob",
volume="42",
number="4",
pages="497-507",
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.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1369-8486",
doi="10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.003",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.003"
}