The studies didn’t seem to be hiding negative results, but the smaller ones showed odd patterns that might mean some results weren’t fully reported.

Pro

Against

Evidence from Studies

Supporting (0)

Community contributions welcome

No supporting evidence found

Contradicting (1)

Community contributions welcome

Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Human

2015

This study says the fat guidelines were made without good proof they worked, but it never checked if some studies were hidden or if small studies skewed the results—so it doesn’t answer the claim about bias.

Source Study

Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Score: 68

DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2014-000196

Similar Assertions

There’s no sign that only studies showing benefits of leafy greens were published—so the results probably aren’t biased by hiding negative findings.

93%

The studies didn’t hide negative results — the data look balanced, so we can trust the overall finding that drop sets aren’t better than regular training.

77%

When scientists looked at all the studies together, they found that some were missing, making the results look smaller than they really are. After fixing this, it seems fast training works better than they first thought.

70%