[hlnx1]

Meta-analyses combine results from many studies and are often treated as the highest level of evidence. They are useful, but they can still mislead.

• A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies it includes
• Differences between studies (populations, protocols, durations) can make pooled results hard to interpret
• Publication bias can inflate effects if negative studies were never published
• Look at the confidence interval, not just the average effect

Related: evidence-based practice in sports medicine.

When you read a meta-analysis, what do you check first?

[hlnx1]

A practical check: look at who the participants were. A meta-analysis based mostly on untrained young men may not apply to trained women or older athletes.

[Author]

Posts