Hey so, is this a normal thing in meta analyses ?
We identified 46 studies for inclusion in our analysis. Of these, 27 studies reported positive associations (significant links to NDDs), 9 showed null associations (no significant link), and 4 indicated negative associations (protective effects).
27+9+4 is 40 I think ? What happened to the 6 other papers ? I’m always confused by the whole “we ignored half of the studies and we won’t tell you why”, if they can also ignore some of the 46 studies they selected, what does the 46 number mean ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
This fails to convey how painfully tedious the communication is between the foundation and the community. At this point it feels like the tension between high executives and an union, with the executives having the deep conviction that they are good and that the union will magically recognize it, if only they could perpetually delay every one of their demands.