Controversy and debate on credibility ceilings. Paper 3: errors in the statistical justification for the "credibility ceiling" method remain uncorrected.
Controversy and debate on credibility ceilings. Paper 3: errors in the statistical justification for the "credibility ceiling" method remain uncorrected.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.002
复制
发表时间：
2020-11
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
VanderWeele TJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mathur MB;VanderWeele TJ
我们之前声称荟萃分析的可信度上限从根本上是有缺陷的。我们回应了伊安纳蒂博士对这些说法的反驳。我们使用统计推理。我们同意约安纳伯格博士关于统计敏感性分析的局限性的一些一般性观点。但关键的是，他的回应完全回避了我们论点的核心，即直接的数学证明，该方法根本没有做到它声称要做的事情。我们重申，如果我们的主张是错误的，那么如果约恩尼斯博士能够在我们的数学论证中找出不准确之处，就可以令人信服地反驳我们的主张，但他没有这样做。约恩尼斯博士还认为我们用来说明该方法的误导性结论的思想实验是“荒谬的”;我们解释了为什么这些例子仍然有效。鉴于我们的论点的核心仍然没有得到解决，我们继续建议不要使用可信度上限方法。然而，我们同情这种方法的潜在目的，如果不是执行。制定实现这些目标的原则性方法将是有益的。
We previously claimed that the credibility ceiling for meta-analyses is fundamentally flawed. We respond to Dr. Ioannidis’ rebuttal of those claims. We use statistical reasoning. We agree with Dr. Ioannidis on some general points about the limitations of statistical sensitivity analyses. But critically, his response has entirely sidestepped responding to the crux of our argument, namely a direct mathematical demonstration that the method simply does not do what it was claimed to do. We reiterate that if our claim were false, it could be persuasively refuted if Dr. Ioannidis were to identify inaccuracies in our mathematical argument, which he has not done. Dr. Ioannidis had also dismissed as “absurd” the thought experiments we had used to illustrate the method’s misleading conclusion; we explain why these examples still stand. Given that the crux of our argument remains unaddressed, we continue to recommend against use of the credibility ceiling method. We are, however, sympathetic to what seem to be the underlying aims of the method, if not the execution. Developing principled methods to address those aims would be useful.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Salanti, Georgia;Ioannidis, John P. A.
通讯作者：
Ioannidis, John P. A.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Mathur MB;VanderWeele TJ
通讯作者：
VanderWeele TJ
DOI：
10.1097/ede.0000000000000457
发表时间：
2016-05
期刊：
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Ding P;VanderWeele TJ
通讯作者：
VanderWeele TJ
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Papatheodorou, Stefania I.;Tsilidis, Konstantinos K.;Ioannidis, John P. A.
通讯作者：
Ioannidis, John P. A.