Reviews Pooling Heterogeneous, Low‐Evidence, High‐Bias Data Result in Incorrect Conclusions: But Heterogeneity is an Opportunity to Explore

Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2018 papers

Abstract

Systematic Review submissions to our journal commonly pool heterogeneous studies of low levels of evidence and a high risk of bias. Pooling, or quantitative synthesis, of such study data regularly results in incorrect conclusions. We reject these submissions without peer-review (desk rejection), and typically invite authors to submit a new, subjective synthesis without pooling and to report ranges of the results of included studies rather than pooled values. Generally, quantitative synthesis, or meta-analysis, should restrict included studies to randomized controlled trials. However, systematic review with exploration of heterogeneity can result in valuable information toward determining strengths and deficiencies of current literature, and thus guide future research.

Related Papers

• Pooling in high-throughput drug screening.(2009)
• → A fully trainable network with RNN-based pooling(2019)22 cited
• Alpha-Pooling for Convolutional Neural Networks.(2018)
• → A Fully Trainable Network with RNN-based Pooling(2017)1 cited
• → Why and when should you pool? Analyzing Pooling in Recurrent\n Architectures(2020)