A-Wolf-Like-Me

A-Wolf-Like-Me t1_j3jqezb wrote

Jumping in here. You made an absolute statement in r/science.

I personally agree with you, but you need to provide a source if you make an absolute statement; otherwise just say it "could be" if you don't have the time. You are communicating on a platform where some will place trust in anecdotal evidence from redditors, and others will begin to doubt their own understanding.

We should be encouraging that people support their statements with scientific literature to reduce potential incorrect information from circulating.

3

A-Wolf-Like-Me t1_j3jhxyl wrote

To be a bit more specific, it's a meta-anslysis which is considered to be the top of the quality of scientific evidence pyramid. It has incorporated appropraite databases where the manuscripts were extracted from, and has followed specific guidelines for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There are of course limitations to this study, but every study has its limitations. It's also important to know the question that the mauscript is trying to answer, as the article will try not to diverge from this question.

1