Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:27:02.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meta-Research Evidence for Evaluating Therapies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jonathan Fuller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The new field of meta-research investigates industry bias, publication bias, contradictions between studies, and other trends in medical research. I argue that its findings should be used as meta-evidence for evaluating therapies. ‘Meta-evidence’ is evidence about the support that direct ‘first-order evidence’ provides the hypothesis. I consider three objections to my proposal: the irrelevance objection, the screening-off objection, and the underdetermination objection. I argue that meta-research evidence works by rationally revising our confidence in first-order evidence and, consequently, in the hypothesis—typically, downward.

Type
Evidence
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 5 , December 2018 , pp. 767 - 780
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks to Mathew Mercuri, Nicolas Wuethrich, and audiences at the Philosophy of Science Association biennial meeting in Atlanta and the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology in Toronto for productive feedback and discussion. I am grateful for funding support from the McLaughlin Centre.

References

Balshem, Howard, et al. 2011. “GRADE Guidelines: 3. Rating the Quality of Evidence.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64 (4): 401–6..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bovens, Luc, and Hartmann, Stephan. 2003. Bayesian Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2010. “What Are Randomised Controlled Trials Good For?” Philosophical Studies 147 (1): 59–70..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David. 2010. “Higher-Order Evidence.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (1): 185–215..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 2005. “Respecting the Evidence.” Philosophical Perspectives 19:95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Jonathan. 2018. “The Confounding Question of Confounding Causes in Randomized Trials.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, online first. doi:10/1093/bjps/axx015.Google Scholar
Guyatt, Gordon H., et al. 2011. “GRADE Guidelines: 5. Rating the Quality of Evidence—Publication Bias.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64 (12): 1277–82..Google ScholarPubMed
Hopewell, Sally, Loudon, Kirsty, Clarke, Mike J., Oxman, Andrew D., and Dickersin, Kay. 2009. “Publication Bias in Clinical Trials Due to Statistical Significance or Direction of Trial Results.” Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 1:MR000006.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Sophie. 2014. “Epistemic Akrasia.” Nous 48 (4): 718–44..10.1111/nous.12026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, Richard. 2015. “Offline: What Is Medicine’s 5 Sigma?” Lancet 385 (9976): 1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, John P. 2005. “Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research.” JAMA 294 (2): 218–28..10.1001/jama.294.2.218CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, John P. 2008. “Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated.” Epidemiology 19 (5): 640–48..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, John P., Fanelli, Daniele, Dunne, Debbie Drake, and Goodman, Steve N.. 2015. “Meta-Research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices.” PLoS Biology 13 (10): e1002264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landes, Jurgen, Osimani, Barbara, and Poellinger, Roland. 2017. “Epistemology of Causal Inference in Pharmacology: Towards a Framework for the Assessment of Harms.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 8:3–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundh, Andreas, Lexchin, Joel, Mintzes, Barbara, Schroll, Jeppe B., and Bero, Lisa. 2012. “Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome.” Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 12:MR000033.Google ScholarPubMed
Pereira, Tiago V., Horwitz, Ralph I., and Ioannidis, John P.. 2012. “Empirical Evaluation of Very Large Treatment Effects of Medical Interventions.” JAMA 308 (16): 1676–84..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roush, Sherrilyn. 2009. “Second Guessing: A Self-Help Manual.” Episteme 6 (3): 251–68..10.3366/E1742360009000690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio. 2008. “How Pharmaceutical Industry Funding Affects Trial Outcomes: Causal Structures and Responses.” Social Science and Medicine 66 (9): 1909–14..10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sliwa, Paulina, and Horowitz, Sophie. 2015. “Respecting All the Evidence.” Philosophical Studies 172 (11): 2835–58..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegenga, Jacob. Forthcoming. Medical Nihilism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar