Yes, and as I noted, the kind of studies it based its conclusion on were already discussed in this thread. What are the imolications of this study? Should salbutamol be banned? No support for that, and that's not going to happen, anyway. Should the permissible amount be raised? More studies would be needed to decide that, and not just studies of its effect, but more importantly, studies correlating dose with urine levels under various conditions.It's a meta-analysis.
A major outcome of the Froome case is that WADA emphasized that salbutamol positives have to be decided on a case by case basis, which in effect means they're abandoning any fixed standard urine level. The level will still be there, and a rider exceeding it may have to defend himself, but now the road is more open to doing that. A second implication is the belief--allegedly supported by Froome's samples, but because these data have not been made available, we can't judge that--that outliers can be relatively common.
It seems to me that what's needed much more than evidence of salbutamol's PE effects is better evidence of dose-urine level relationships. That's far more relevant to controlling its use.