  The coronavirus pandemic (COVID) has been an extraordinary test of modern
government scientific procedures that inform and shape policy. Many governments
implemented COVID quarantine (stay-at-home) orders on the notion that this
nonpharmaceutical intervention would delay and flatten the epidemic peak and
largely benefit public health outcomes. The overall research capacity response
to COVID since late 2019 has been massive. Given lack of research transparency,
only a small fraction of published research has been judged by others to be
reproducible before COVID. Independent evaluation of published meta-analysis on
a common research question can be used to assess the reproducibility of a claim
coming from that field of research. We used a p-value plotting statistical
method to independently evaluate reproducibility of specific research claims
made in four meta-analysis studies related to benefits/risks of COVID
quarantine orders. Outcomes we investigated included: mortality, mental health
symptoms, incidence of domestic violence, and suicidal ideation (thoughts of
killing yourself). Three of the four meta-analyses that we evaluated
(mortality, mental health symptoms, incidence of domestic violence) raise
further questions about benefits/risks of this form of intervention. The fourth
meta-analysis study (suicidal ideation) is unreliable. Given lack of research
transparency and irreproducibility of published research, independent
evaluation of meta-analysis studies using p-value plotting is offered as a way
to strengthen or refute (falsify) claims made in COVID research.
