Editing 1447: Meta-Analysis

{{comic
| number    = 1447
| date      = November 14, 2014
| title     = Meta-Analysis
| image     = meta-analysis.png
| titletext = Life goal #29 is to get enough of them rejected that I can publish a comparative analysis of the rejection letters.
}}

==Explanation==
In the scientific literature, {{w|Meta-analysis|meta-analyses}} are studies which compare multiple studies on a single topic, with the aim of giving a balanced overview of the known results. [http://www.medline.com/ Medline], [http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/embase/about Embase] and [http://www.cochrane.org/ Cochrane] are medical research databases which give access to studies on drug effects or results of other medical procedures.

This comic explores the idea of iterating the process, going from meta-analyses to meta-meta-analyses (which actually exist, though not necessarily by that name, see below) and hence to a meta-meta-meta-analysis.

Of course, the title text adds another level of meta-analysis, since he wants to make a meta-analysis of rejection letters which concern his meta-meta-meta analyses.

All of the cited meta-meta-analyses are real: M. Sampson (2003),<ref name="sampson">M. Sampson et al, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00110-0  Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline?], J. Clim. Epidemiol, 2003</ref> P. L. Royle (2005),<ref name="royle">P. L. Royle et al, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01645.x Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes], Diabetic Medicine, 2005</ref> E. Lee (2011),<ref name="lee">E. J. Lee et al, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.01.007 The Efficacy of Acupressure for Symptom Management: A Systematic Review], J Pain Symptom Manage, 2011</ref> and A.R. Lemeshow (2005).<ref name="lemeshow">A.R. Lemeshow et al, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.03.004 Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies], J. Clim. Epidemiol, 2005</ref>

The phrase "too meta" can be found in the comments of videos, blog posts, and other internet content for which the commentator claims they are so abstract that they can't be easily interpreted. It refers to the thing in question being too self-referential, but could just be a cursory dismissal of the presented content.

Comic [[93: Jeremy Irons]] similarly states a slightly absurd "life goal". [[917: Hofstadter]] is "meta"-related.

==Transcript==
:[Excerpt from a scientific paper.]
:Many meta-analysis studies include the phrase “We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for studies…”
:This has led to meta-meta-analyses comparing meta-analysis methods. e.g. M Sampson (2003), PL Royle (2005), E Lee (2011), AR Lemeshow (2005).
:We performed a meta-meta-meta-analysis of these meta-meta-analyses.
:<u>Methods:</u> We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for the phrase “We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for the phrase ‘We searched Medline, Embase, and [cut off]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Life goal #28: get a paper rejected with the comment “Too meta”


{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Self-reference]]