I am not aware of any statements from either Goldacre or Spiegelhalter that there's a better method of establishing what's known and what isn't known in this sort of domain than systematic review. If our current knowledge is limited (as it is) then a systematic review will reveal precisely that.pjclinch wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 7:12pmI find it telling that Goldacre is very much a proponent of SR and in much of his writing goes out of his way to promote and encourage their use, but that Cycle helmets and the law says the current research body isn't really conclusive and there is a suggestion that more work along the same lines won't be either. He doesn't say all someone needs to do is systematically review it and we'll have progress. The drift (especially if read with the background on the badscience website or in I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that) is that it's a field where the current tools don't appear to be up to this particular job. Those current tools include SR.
Jonathan