What makes a meta-analysis believable?

Lee MMY, Kaul S, Krumholz HM, Pocock SJ, Lam CSP, Zannad F

DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(26)01087-1
Published: 2026 Sep 19
Container: Lancet (London, England)
Publisher: Not recorded
Open access: unknown

Credibility signals

limited evidence Score 43/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.

Show all credibility signals

cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

Cite this work

BibTeX

@article{allodium:10.1016/s0140-6736-26-01087-1,
  title = {What makes a meta-analysis believable?},
  author = {Lee MMY and Kaul S and Krumholz HM and Pocock SJ and Lam CSP and Zannad F},
  year = {2026},
  journal = {Lancet (London, England)},
  doi = {10.1016/s0140-6736(26)01087-1},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(26)01087-1}
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
TI  - What makes a meta-analysis believable?
AU  - Lee MMY
AU  - Kaul S
AU  - Krumholz HM
AU  - Pocock SJ
AU  - Lam CSP
AU  - Zannad F
PY  - 2026
JO  - Lancet (London, England)
DO  - 10.1016/s0140-6736(26)01087-1
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(26)01087-1
ER  -

APA

MMY, L., S, K., HM, K., SJ, P., CSP, L., & F, Z. (2026). What makes a meta-analysis believable?. Lancet (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(26)01087-1

Source records

pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-26T03:30:31.294Z