Maybe. Those could be the case. But ignoring all confounding factors, this phenomenon is possible with numerical experiments alone. One of the meanings of "the Law of Small Numbers".

Basically, the possibility that the small study was underpowered, and just lucky...then the large studies with more power are closer to the truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

▲

kadushka 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, could be just lucky. But if there are several successful small studies, and several unsuccessful large ones (no idea if this is the case here), we should probably look for a better explanation.

	▲	svara 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It does not require more explanation: publication bias means null results aren't in the literature; do enough small low quality trials and you'll find a big effect sooner or later. Then the supposed big effect attracts attention and ultimately properly designed studies which show no effect.