Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough is a research paper published in The Lancet (1998). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.976. It has been cited 667 times.
Are meta-analyses the brave new world, or are the critics of such combined analyses right to say that the biases inherent in clinical trials make them uncombinable? Negative trials are often unreported, and hence can be missed by meta-analysts. And how much heterogeneity between trials is acceptable? A recent major criticism is that large randomised trials do not always agree with a prior meta-analysis. Neither individual trials nor meta-analyses, reporting as they do on population effects, tell how to treat the individual patient. Here we take a more rounded approach to meta-analyses, arguing that their strengths outweigh their weaknesses, although the latter must not be brushed aside.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.976
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.