Meta analysis is actually the best class of scientific evidence. A meta analysis looks at the totality of research on the subject. Because any single study can yield different results, scientists need to do many studies. Certainty in science comes from replication. If repeated studies show the same results, those results become more certain. If a new meta analysis confirms the result of an old meta analysis, it shows the results are likely to be accurate.

The new meta analysis included newer research. That conclusion is saying that the newer studies match the results of the old ones. That’s how science works. Nothing can be certain unless its replicable. Most science is like this. Papers are written by scientists for other scientists. Meta analysis from every field are exactly like this.

But any study like these looking for the general case. This analysis is making limited claims with strong certainty. This study is saying that, with a great deal of certainty, CBT has a small to medium effect on most people, but not all of those who get it.

There are many problems in medicine. You have encountered many of them.

Its clear CBT didn’t work for you, but that in no way means that the science is wrong, or that meta analysis, as a concept, are bad science.

The drugs that you are taking were studied in exactly the same way. There are analycies and meta analycies on their effects that will sound just as pointlessly reduntant as the one you looked at. That is the process.