Skip to main content

Goldilocks and the three reviews



Goldilocks is right: that review is FAR too complicated. The methods section alone is 652 pages long! Which wouldn't be too bad, if it weren't that it is a few years out of date. It took so long to do this review and go through rigorous enough quality review, it was already out of date the day it was released. Something that happens often enough to be rather disheartening.

When methodology for systematic reviewing gets overly rococo, the point of diminishing returns will be passed. That's a worry, for a few reasons. For one, it's inefficient and more reviews could be done with the resources. Secondly, more complex methodology can both be daunting, and it can be hard for researchers to accomplish with consistency. Thirdly, when a review gets very elaborate, reproducing or updating it isn't going to be easy either.

It's unavoidable for some reviews to be massive and complex undertakings, though, if they're going to get to the bottom of massive and complex questions. Goldilocks is right about review number 2, as well: that one is WAY too simple. And that's a serious problem, too.

Reviewing evidence needs to be a well-conducted research exercise. A great way to find out more about what goes wrong when it's not, is reading Testing Treatments. And see more on this here at Statistically Funny, too.

You need to check the methods section of every review before you take its conclusions seriously - even when it claims to be "evidence-based" or systematic. People can take far too many shortcuts. Fortunately, it's not often that a review gets as bad as the second one Goldilocks encountered here. The authors of that review decided to include only one trial for each drug "in order to keep the tables and figures to a manageable size." Gulp!

Getting to a good answer also quite simply takes some time and thought. Making real sense of evidence and the complexities of health, illness and disability is often just not suited to a "fast food" approach. As the scientists behind the Slow Science Manifesto point out, science needs time for thinking and digesting.

To cover more ground, people are looking for reasonable ways to cut corners, though. There are many kinds of rapid review, including reliance on previous systematic reviews for new reviews. These can be, but aren't always, rigorous enough for us to be confident about their conclusions.

You can see this process at work in the set of reviews discussed at Statistically Funny a few cartoons ago. Review number 3 there is in part based on review number 2 - without re-analysis. And then review number 4 is based on review number 3.

So if one review gets it wrong, other work may be built on weak foundations. Li and Dickersin suggest this might be a clue to the perpetuation of incorrect techniques in meta-analyses: reviewers who got it wrong in their review, were citing other reviews that had gotten it wrong, too. (That statistical technique, by the way, has its own cartoon.)

Luckily for Goldilocks, the bears had found a third review. It had sound methodology you can trust. It had been totally transparent from the start - included in PROSPERO, the international prospective register for systematic reviews. Goldilocks can get at the fully open review quickly via PubMed Health, and its data are in the Systematic Review Data Repository, open to others to check and re-use. Ahhh - just right!


I'm grateful to the Wikipedians who put together the article on Goldilocks and the three bears. That article pointed me to the fascinating discussion of "the rule of three" and the hold this number has on our imaginations.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Austerity-A Fancy Word for Destitute.

The reason for this post is not for the folks who have been caught in the first wave of personal economic hard reality, but the next wave. Regardless of the optimism espoused by grinning leaders and sycophant press, we are entering the final stage of global economic collapse. It began in 2008 and was forestalled for five years with fudge putty, but the weight of global indebtedness cannot be propped any longer and the final crunch is imminent. Austerity measures herald the final throes.  Indications of coming austerity.   Austerity measures are the final last ditch effort, futile or not! Back in the day many of us old-timers went through periods of "hard-times". In retrospect I realize there is no comparison to yesteryear hard times and today's version. Back then, expectations were never very high for the working class, there were no sophisticated systems or conveniences anyway. In fact the difference between being "set" or not was about having treats or not. Si...
Post a Comment
Read more

Terrifying Arctic methane levels

A peak methane level of 3026 ppb was recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 469 mb on December 11, 2021 am. This follows a peak methane level of  3644 ppb  recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 367 mb on November 21, 2021, pm. A peak methane level of 2716 ppb was recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 586 mb on December 11, 2021, pm, as above image shows. This image is possibly even more terrifying than the image at the top, as above image shows that at 586 mb, i.e. much closer to sea level, almost all methane shows up over sea, rather than over land, supporting the possibility of large methane eruptions from the seafloor, especially in the Arctic.  Also, the image was recorded later than the image at the top with the 3026 ppb peak, indicating that even more methane may be on the way. This appears to be confirmed by the Copernicus forecast for December 12, 2021, 03 UTC, as illustrated by the image below, which shows methane at 500 hPa (equivalent to 500 mb). Furthermore, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Women and children overboard

It's the  Catch-22  of clinical trials: to protect pregnant women and children from the risks of untested drugs....we don't test drugs adequately for them. In the last few decades , we've been more concerned about the harms of research than of inadequately tested treatments for everyone, in fact. But for "vulnerable populations,"  like pregnant women and children, the default was to exclude them. And just in case any women might be, or might become, pregnant, it was often easier just to exclude us all from trials. It got so bad, that by the late 1990s, the FDA realized regulations and more for pregnant women - and women generally - had to change. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) took action too. And so few drugs had enough safety and efficacy information for children that, even in official circles, children were being called "therapeutic orphans."  Action began on that, too. There is still a long way to go. But this month there was a sign that ...
Post a Comment
Read more