Talk:1447: Meta-Analysis

What is this "Medline, Embase and Cochrane" ? Thanks. Dams. 108.162.254.30 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Databases of Medical Publications 108.162.254.30 08:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Medline[1], Embase[2] and Cochrane[3] are medical research databases. You can find there studies on various drug uses or treatment plans. A useful information source if you want to compare studies on use of Allopurinol for chronic gout or else. Jkotek (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that should be in the explanation, no? -- Brettpeirce (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to include a breakdown of the terms?

• Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]"
• Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]'"
• Meta-Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]""

Smperron (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay so... Is Meta-Meta-Meta-Meta-Analysis just "We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]"""? 162.158.28.184 (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Your paper is rejected. //"TOO META"--Theme (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO a better would be this:

• Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for [keyword] and compared results between each other"
• Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We analyzed how others 'search the M, E, & C for for [keyword] and compare the results'"
• Meta-Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We analyzed how other 'analyze how others search the M, E, & C for for [keyword] and compare the results'"

too meta Jkotek (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this explanation! Why isn't there an "Explain Explain XKCD" site? --RenniePet (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment! We need a Explain XKCD comment comments section!--108.162.231.199 09:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Randall actually enjoys rejections. 173.245.50.139 03:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "too meta" means that something is too self referential. Not "so abstract that they can't be easily interpreted." 108.162.254.88 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Actually, if we stick to the greek root, "meta" simply signifies "beyond", or "after". So, by adding level after level of analysis, by going beyond single studies, and single studies of single studies, it is truly becoming "too meta", too grand. 108.162.229.207 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it could mean both. For example, "too meta" = "the strenght of meta is too high" for being too self referential or "too meta" = "there's too many metas" for the excess or abstraction. I'm now experiencing Semantic satiation. 188.114.99.189 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If the paper is a meta-meta-meta-analysis, then the paper is discussing the paper is discussing the paper? Is the Methods section (near-)infinite? How much paper does Randall have? 108.162.246.164 17:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Papers are mostly paperless these days. 172.69.34.10 20:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe he's a quitter. L-Space Traveler (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Meta-analyses may use other permutations (like "We searched Embase, Cochrane and Medline for…"). Since there are 3 databases, the number of permutations is 6 for each iteration. All iterations are independent from the others, so there are 36 possibilities in a meta-meta-meta-analysis, and 46,656 in a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis.

Since the number of possibilities increases exponentially, a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis would have over 10¹⁴ permutations, much more than what can be handled by hand, a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis has over 3.6 · 10²², and a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis has about as many possibilites as the estimated number of elementary particles (although I found no meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis or beyond on the web and only 1 study said to be a meta-meta-meta-analysis). 172.70.42.25 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Going further down the rabbit hole: Some research papers may or may not include "and" between the penultimate and last terms, using only comma instead. Accounting for this doubles the number of possible ways searching Medline, Embase and Cochrane can be stated – so a meta-meta-analysis may search for 12 different ways, a meta-meta-meta-analysis for 144, a meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis for 1,728, a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis for 20,736, a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis for 248,832, a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis for 2,985,984, etc. This means that it would only take a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis to reach approximately the upper bound for the estimated number of elementary particles within the observable universe.

• Between "searched" and the first database, "((with)in) (the) ((bio)medical|scientific) (databas|index)es" may occur (a multiplier of 37, increasing the base to 444).
• Adding the possibility for omitting "the (terms)" multiplies the base by 3, increasing it to 1332, reducing the iterations to 32–33.
• Adding the possibility of 1 person doing the analysis ("We" → "I") multiplies the base by 2 (= 2664), reducing iterations to 30.

2001:4C4D:12C4:AF00:25F3:9B6E:1A45:E897 21:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)