Odds ratios or p_values from individual observational studies can be combined to examine a common cause_effect research question in meta_analysis. However, reliability of individual studies used in meta_analysis should not be taken for granted as claimed cause_effect associations may not reproduce. An evaluation was undertaken on meta_analysis of base papers examining gas stove cooking, including nitrogen dioxide, NO2, and childhood asthma and wheeze associations. Numbers of hypotheses tested in 14 of 27 base papers, 52 percent, used in meta_analysis of asthma and wheeze were counted. Test statistics used in the meta_analysis, 40 odds ratios with 95 percent confidence limits, were converted to p_values and presented in p_value plots. The median and interquartile range of possible numbers of hypotheses tested in the 14 base papers was 15,360, 6,336_49,152. None of the 14 base papers made mention of correcting for multiple testing, nor was any explanation offered if no multiple testing procedure was used. Given large numbers of hypotheses available, statistics drawn from base papers and used for meta-analysis are likely biased. Even so, p-value plots for gas stove_current asthma and gas stove_current wheeze associations show randomness consistent with unproven gas stove harms. The meta-analysis fails to provide reliable evidence for public health policy making on gas stove harms to children in North America. NO2 is not established as a biologically plausible explanation of a causal link with childhood asthma. Biases_multiple testing and p-hacking_cannot be ruled out as explanations for a gas stove_current asthma association claim. Selective reporting is another bias in published literature of gas stove_childhood respiratory health studies. Keywords gas stove, asthma, meta-analysis, p-value plot, multiple testing, p_hacking

翻译：单观测研究中的比值比或p值可通过荟萃分析进行合并，以考察共同的因果研究问题。然而，荟萃分析中所用个别研究的可靠性不应被视为理所当然，因为所声称的因果关联可能无法重现。本研究对探究燃气灶烹饪（包括二氧化氮NO2）与儿童哮喘及喘息关联的基础论文荟萃分析进行了评估。统计了27篇用于哮喘及喘息荟萃分析的基础论文中，14篇（占52%）所检验的假设数量。将用于荟萃分析的检验统计量（40个比值比及其95%置信区间）转换为p值，并呈现在p值图中。这14篇基础论文可能检验的假设数量中位数为15,360，四分位距为6,336至49,152。14篇基础论文中均未提及对多重检验进行校正，也未解释为何未采用多重检验程序。鉴于存在大量可供检验的假设，从基础论文中提取并用于荟萃分析的统计量可能存在偏倚。即便如此，燃气灶与当前哮喘及燃气灶与当前喘息关联的p值图显示其随机性与燃气灶尚未被证实的有害性一致。该荟萃分析未能为北美地区燃气灶对儿童健康危害的公共卫生政策制定提供可靠证据。NO2尚未被确立为与儿童哮喘存在因果关联的生物学合理解释。偏倚（多重检验和p值操控）无法被排除为燃气灶与当前哮喘关联主张的解释因素。选择性报告是燃气灶与儿童呼吸健康研究已发表文献中的另一偏倚。关键词：燃气灶，哮喘，荟萃分析，p值图，多重检验，p值操控