I've published (and still am publishing) multiple meta analyses. IMO,meta analysis on aggregate data is an h-index gaming machine that can never increase the value of its constituents. The amount of missing info in aggregate data is such that it's _always_ impossible to know if the constituent studies really draw from the same population, which is the cornerstone of meta analysis. And that's very practical, because most authors (myself included) mainly use meta analysis as a means to build a career, and not at all for doing science. IMO, current clinical research has very little science left in it. That's a huge shame, and it's a real priority to make that change!
