Bashing #metaanalysis is as fashionable as ever, as always with hands up in the air. In response to a thread moaning the lack of added value of meta-analyses over individual studies, I realized I know of *many* meta-analyses that literally overturned whole fields.
So I want to start my alternative thread, in which instead the of the same old lamets, we list consequential meta-analyses in #Mentalhealth, which definitely provided more information than each and any single individual study.
These don't have to be methodologically flawless, because no study is. They do have to have a decent quality (which is much less of an elusive construct than oft presented). I will start with a few and update when I have time. Feel free to add to the collection. Order random.
Smit, Huibers, Ioannidis, et al.on the (lack of) effectiveness of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy, followed by a flurry of re-analyses, comments etc. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/
My good friend @NaudetFlorian flipping network meta-analysis on its head by seemingly differential efficacy of placebos (yes, this means that you can use the method in an elegant way to show limitations of the method, which I think trump Twitter rants) bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
.@Toshi_FRKW et al. on dismantling internet-based CBT for depression, using the most sophisticated IMO approach yet that combines component network meta-analysis with individual patient data: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33957075/
Leucht et al in a perspective-changing meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of general medicine and psychiatric medication. cambridge.org/core/journals/…
(And our citation analysis showing how the message was distorted: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29183418/
.@eturnermd1 et al on selective publication of antidepressants, with a demonstration of the impact on apparent efficacy nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In this viewpoint we make two main arguments. 1. There is equipoise for non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) for #SARSCoV2#COVID19 containment because there is uncertainty re: the magnitude of both effectiveness & harms. Uncertainty is vast for some measures.
2. An agenda of randomized controlled trials of NPIs is both possible & feasible. We delineate measures that could be the focus on RCTs, along w/ issues related to designs, comparators (not advocating doing nothing!), outcomes (type, timing), obstacles & counterarguments to RCTs.
People who follow this field know I have been one of its first and unrelenting critics, starting with my meta-analysis in 2015 @TheBJPsych (again w/ @pimcuijpers) cambridge.org/core/journals/…, followed by others, including many viewpoints, comments & replies that I will spare you.
I was one of the first researchers to have explicitly state that maybe #CBM just does not work and there are no moderators or boundary conditions that can save it. But time passed, studies went on, the field continued to grow & adapt, and so maybe it was time for a reassessment.