Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
This paper dives into the dilemma of meta-analysis.
The theory is that meta-analysis leads to a larger sample size, narrower confidence intervals, and thus more apparent precision.
The reality is that separate trials are conducted with different rating scales - how many diverse rating scales obtain for depression! - and the mathematical framework may be everything from an ordinary mean to Number Needed to Treat to Odds Ratio.
The paper is really about the impossibility, mathematical or otherwise, of precise scientific meta-analysis.
The resulting forest plot may look very convincing, but it may be a mere mathematical artifice.
With medical statistics, what appears mathematically convincing may not be medically worthwhile. For example, a large sample size can conjure up a statistically significant result that has no medical worth.
To an amateur statistician such as me, the paper came across as mathematical legerdemain - the complicated rabbits being pulled out of the meta-analysis hat were, in the end, an admission that this process has incurable flaws.