环境流行病学荟萃分析的可靠性：一项个案研究
The reliability of an environmental epidemiology meta-analysis, a case study
摘要：
科学论文中的声明正受到越来越多的审查，许多声明未能复制。使用不可靠的观察性研究的荟萃分析研究应该受到质疑。我们检查了空气质量/心脏病发作荟萃分析中使用的基础研究的可靠性以及由此产生的荟萃分析。方法对一项包括14项观察性空气质量/心脏病发作研究的荟萃分析研究进行统计可靠性检查。我们使用简单的计数来评估基础论文的可靠性，并使用基础研究的p值的p值图来检查研究异质性。结果-我们发现，基于文件有大量的多重检验和多重建模，没有统计调整。来自基础论文的统计数据不能保证是无偏的，这是有效的荟萃分析的要求。基础论文存在研究异质性，有强有力的证据证明所谓的p-黑客攻击。解释我们观察到两点：14项基础研究中的每一项都有许多有争议的声明，因此未校正的多重检验是一个严重的问题。我们发现基础论文和由此产生的荟萃分析是不可靠的。
英文摘要：
Summary Background Claims made in science papers are coming under increased scrutiny with many claims failing to replicate. Meta-analysis studies that use unreliable observational studies should be in question. We examine the reliability of the base studies used in an air quality/heart attack meta-analysis and the resulting meta-analysis. Methods A meta-analysis study that includes 14 observational air quality/heart attack studies is examined for its statistical reliability. We use simple counting to evaluate the reliability of the base papers and a p-value plot of the p-values from the base studies to examine study heterogeneity. Findings We find that the based papers have massive multiple testing and multiple modeling with no statistical adjustments. Statistics coming from the base papers are not guaranteed to be unbiased, a requirement for a valid meta-analysis. There is study heterogeneity for the base papers with strong evidence for so called p-hacking. Interpretation We make two observations: there are many claims at issue in each of the 14 base studies so uncorrected multiple testing is a serious issue. We find the base papers and the resulting meta-analysis are unreliable.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
