Flawed meta‑analyses shape sports policy

A single flawed meta‑analysis in a prominent journal can create the appearance of scientific consensus and be cited to justify policy shifts — even when the pooled evidence is underpowered or mis‑selected. That dynamic lets methodological mistakes in peer review translate rapidly into media narratives and rule changes for athletic inclusion. — Highlights how technical errors in evidence synthesis can have outsized effects on contentious social policies (here, transgender athlete inclusion) and on public trust in medical journals.