Systematic reviews aggregate the available evidence regarding one research question, while meta-analyses provide a statistical estimate that tells if there is a significant effect and how large this effect is. For anyone who offers treatments, interventions, coaching or training programmes, systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer invaluable insights for ensuring robust, evidence-based work.
Some background
When discussing the latest scientific findings, we often focus on the results of one specific study, usually some headline-grabbing exciting results. Although doing so is understandable, if we want to get a sense of the real evidence, we need to be more cautious.
But why? Didn’t this study just prove the point?
To answer this question, I need to explain a key principle of scientific research. Although this principle is similar in most (if not all) branches of science, I will apply it to research with humans, in psychology, neuroscience, medicine and similar disciplines that all use comparable methodologies.
