Final answer:
True, systematic reviews provide a more reliable level of evidence than a single study as they synthesize findings from multiple research studies (1). Larger sample sizes in scientific experiments are preferred. Human experimentation is allowed with ethical oversight, and independent studies are generally seen as more reliable.
Step-by-step explanation:
True or false: Systematic reviews typically provide a higher level of evidence than a single study. The answer is true. Systematic reviews are considered a higher level of evidence as they critically appraise and synthesize multiple research studies on a particular topic. By including a larger number of studies, systematic reviews minimize bias, increase the generalizability of findings, and provide a more robust and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter compared to the results of a single study.
Larger sample sizes are generally better than smaller ones in scientific experiments since they tend to provide more precise estimates of effects and have more statistical power to detect differences if they do exist. Experiments can be done on humans, but they must adhere to strict ethical guidelines and often require oversight by institutional review boards.
When considering the reliability of studies, those performed by independent bodies, such as the American Medical Association, are typically more reliable than those conducted by companies with potential conflicts of interest, like a company that designed the software program being studied. However, if both groups conclude the software works, it indicates some level of agreement, but the independence of the research should still be considered when assessing the studies' reliability and whether the company's claims of mental improvement in stroke patients are substantiated.