In defense of meta-analysis

@article{Holman2018InDO,
  title={In defense of meta-analysis},
  author={Bennett Holman},
  journal={Synthese},
  year={2018},
  pages={1-23}
}
Arguments that medical decision making should rely on a variety of evidence often begin from the claim that meta-analysis has been shown to be problematic. In this paper, I first examine Stegenga’s (Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42:497–507, 2011) argument that meta-analysis requires multiple decisions and thus fails to provide an objective ground for medical decision making. Next, I examine three arguments from social epistemologists that contend that meta… CONTINUE READING

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
SHOWING 1-10 OF 82 REFERENCES

Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study.

  • Studies in history and philosophy of science
  • 2016
VIEW 8 EXCERPTS
HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

Measuring effectiveness.

  • Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences
  • 2015
VIEW 8 EXCERPTS
HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

Efficacy of antidepressants: a re-analysis and re-interpretation of the Kirsch data.

  • The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology
  • 2011
VIEW 7 EXCERPTS
HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence?

  • Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences
  • 2011
VIEW 15 EXCERPTS
HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression.

  • The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
  • 2004
VIEW 6 EXCERPTS
HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL