Meta-analysis has become an increasingly popular tool used by many scientists to synthesise data. However, it's not without its detractors — from H. J. Eysenck, Ph.D., calling it "an exercise in mega-silliness" in 1978, to J. A. J. Heathers Ph.D., describing its use as a "profound moral failing" (he's half-serious) in 2016.

In this episode, Dan defends meta-analysis against more recent criticisms put forward by James and offers suggestions on how meta-analysis can be improved.

Links:

PRISMA statement - http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James talk about Scihub and open access publishing.

Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James talk about nutrition and psychiatry. They also introduce themselves (you know, because that's what you do for your second episode) and explain the origin of their podcast name.

Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James discuss what to do if you want to collect heart rate variability (HRV) data, oxytocin parties (yes, they're a thing), and the peer review process.

Support Everything Hertz