Opposites React: A meta-analysis of entheseal changes (original) (raw)
A previous meta-analysis of entheseal changes (EC, previously called musculoskeletal stress markers) demonstrated that the subsistence strategy with the lowest scores for EC were agriculturalists (Henderson 2013). This was surprising given that our bodies should be best adapted, through evolution, to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. A recent study demonstrated that agonist/antagonist enthesis pairs show that one enthesis has a tendency to have a higher frequency than its “opposer” (Villotte et al. 2014). The aim of this study was to undertake a meta-analysis of published data to test this for a wide range of sites and entheses. This updated meta-analysis used all papers, dissertations and theses found using a search in GoogleScholar presenting scored data using any method for recording EC in the upper limb. Over 160 papers were found, but the majority were either irrelevant, or did not present data appropriately. Only 31 papers could be included. Six agonist/antagonist pairs of entheses were utilised. Results demonstrate that there are general trends for one enthesis to have a higher frequency of EC than its “opposer”. However, reversals in trends occur: more commonly in the hunter-gatherer populations than in the agricultural samples (OR 2.4) and only one reversal in the industrial sample. Males exhibited more reversals than females. Site specific comparisons demonstrated differences in trends through time at some sites (e.g. Chapman 1997). Studying relationships between agonist and antagonist pairs shows promise for future studies of activity-patterns using entheses. Currently meta-analyses are limited by the lack of reporting standards for EC.
Related papers
Meta-analysis is not an exact science: Call for guidance on quantitative synthesis decisions
Environment International, 2018
Meta-analysis is becoming increasingly popular in the field of ecology and environmental management. It increases the effective power of analyses relative to single studies, and allows researchers to investigate effect modifiers and sources of heterogeneity that could not be easily examined within single studies. Many systematic reviewers will set out to conduct a meta-analysis as part of their synthesis, but meta-analysis requires a niche set of skills that are not widely held by the environmental research community. Each step in the process of carrying out a meta-analysis requires decisions that have both scientific and statistical implications. Reviewers are likely to be faced with a plethora of decisions over which effect size to choose, how to calculate variances, and how to build statistical models. Some of these decisions may be simple based on appropriateness of the options. At other times, reviewers must choose between equally valid approaches given the information available to them. This presents a significant problem when reviewers are attempting to conduct a reliable synthesis, such as a systematic review, where subjectivity is minimised and all decisions are documented and justified transparently. We propose three urgent, necessary developments within the evidence synthesis community. Firstly, we call on quantitative synthesis experts to improve guidance on how to prepare data for quantitative synthesis, providing explicit detail to support systematic reviewers. Secondly, we call on journal editors and evidence synthesis coordinating bodies (e.g. CEE) to ensure that quantitative synthesis methods are adequately reported in a transparent and repeatable manner in published systematic reviews. Finally, where faced with two or more broadly equally valid alternative methods or actions, reviewers should conduct multiple analyses, presenting all options, and discussing the implications of the different analytical approaches. We believe it is vital to tackle the possible subjectivity in quantitative synthesis described herein to ensure that the extensive efforts expended in producing systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis products is not wasted because of a lack of rigour or reliability in the final synthesis step.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.