Comment

Qwel@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

Hey so, is this a normal thing in meta analyses ?

We identified 46 studies for inclusion in our analysis. Of these, 27 studies reported positive associations (significant links to NDDs), 9 showed null associations (no significant link), and 4 indicated negative associations (protective effects).

27+9+4 is 40 I think ? What happened to the 6 other papers ? I’m always confused by the whole “we ignored half of the studies and we won’t tell you why”, if they can also ignore some of the 46 studies they selected, what does the 46 number mean ?

source

Sort:hotnew top

snooggums@piefed.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
They just ditched the studies they didn't like.

https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2025/mount-sinai-study-supports-evidence-that-prenatal-acetaminophen-use-may-be-linked-to-increased-risk-of-autism-and-adhd

“Our findings show that higher-quality studies are more likely to show a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and increased risks of autism and ADHD,”

The study was funded by the agencies RFK Jr heads. He said this spring that he would have an answer in September, which coincidentally is the month after this study that he wanted came out.

source
- prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  we think the studies that confirm our bias are higher quality
  
  What a fucking joke
  
  source