"We recognize that this is a change to long-accepted practice and is substantially more rigorous than the standards that are typically currently applied"
Meta-analyses generally follow certain pre-established standards. That's the whole point of such studies.
It's one thing to claim that authors of a particular meta-study broke the standards. This is not being claimed here. It's an entirely different thing to claim that the standards themselves are broken and need to be changed generally. This is a huge claim that casts doubt on tons of prior research.
Maybe we do need more rigorous rules for meta-analysis. However, if that's the case, it should be true for all research of this type, not just papers examining "interventions for COVID-19" (as the article suggests).
Hence, my take on this. It's reasonable to question scientific standards if you are willing to demonstrate that they are really broken. (This was done with p-hacking, for example.) It's not reasonable to say that a specific subject in research should have different evidentiary standards because of controversy around one drug.
I think you're dignifying this comment, which objects to the authors request that meta-studies not include fraudulent analyses in their inputs as an unwarranted "change to established practice".
