I will not accept sub-standard evidence in the "evidence-based practice guidelines of what to eat to achieve health". I ask for current, and future public health policy analysts to remove all industry funded studies from the "evidence-base" and just see what is left over.
No, I mean, they do indeed go into the mix - that's how you get gradations of evidence (A, B, C etc). What you're suggesting is that we prioritize a single source of bias, exclude all studies with that source, and then analyze the data - that is not best practice/evidence-based!
-
-
There's evidence that industry funding biases studies - usually, these studies tend to provide favourable conclusions for the industry funder. However, poor allocation concealment (for example), is arguably an even bigger source of bias, giving worse results
-
These “reasons” are exactly why a series of sensitivity analyses should have been conducted. Gid, we are talking about a compilation of evidence that shapes our FOOD SUPPLY - knowledge about limitations is the very reason we should APPLY WITH CAUTION as its “GRADE C” suggests
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
as a first step. It will be time consuming thought bc the "spreadsheet" of evidence did not identify "industry funded" as yes/no.