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.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @WeDietitians
That seems like a poor choice, evidence-wise. Industry funding is one source of bias, true, but there are plenty of other ones. Not all industry funding is bad and not all non-industry research is good
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
More than reasonable ADG assessed with and without this first bias. Then we can see what the next step is. The poorer choice is not to do this
as a first step. It will be time consuming thought bc the "spreadsheet" of evidence did not identify "industry funded" as yes/no.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeDietitians @GidMK
The DAA SR did not include details on article funding, but the reviewers *did* identify and record funding sources - see extract from Process Manual
. So why didn't they include that info in the SR?pic.twitter.com/1Ct7OvbIKt
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @foodnuthealth @WeDietitians
I'd assume because cataloguing every piece of bias for each study would push the document out into 10,000s of pages. Most bias questionnaires are ~3 pages at least
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @foodnuthealth
Ok so there’s holes in the methodology bc of practicalities? At minimum, in conversations about ADG - the “robustness” and “done by professors” needs moderating?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeDietitians @foodnuthealth
It's not a hole in the methodology. the bias is taken into account in the grading - industry funding would push the score down somewhat, alongside other things that might push it up Cochrane has some great documents if you're interested in how it works http://training.cochrane.org/resource/grade-handbook …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @foodnuthealth
TW: I’m just going to do a little appeal to cv Gid, I’ve taught epi & biostats, translation to practice, and one on one for SR&MA. As a private consultant I did SR&MA for years. Now that’s out of the way...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @WeDietitians @foodnuthealth
So why are you picking out industry funding as a source of bias? The evidence suggests it's no worse than many other issues with research, seems like an ideological rather than evidential issue to me
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @foodnuthealth
Bc 1) we can 2) we should 3) the ADG are the evidence-base for generations of health professionals and public health policy 4) the public deserves this clarity 5) the socio-political landscape demands
#WeCanDoBetter 6) your epi tweets indicate “best methodology” is not= “robust”1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Why should we? What's the basis of that argument?
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @foodnuthealth
Bc gid, Australia has the highest rate of food-related chronic disease across the OECD. Suggests - what we’ve been doing isn’t working. When seeking solutions “The establishment” default to “ADG bc evidence” and I’m saying (and you are too) “they’re not robust”
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.