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.
Not at all. I'm saying that it is methodologically flawed to pick out one source of bias and declare it supreme, when we know - there are plenty of meta-studies on this - that industry funding is but one area that could potentially affect the outcomes of a study
-
-
It’s a research question - it’s cannot be methodologically flawed. That’s my point. Methodology selected to answer question. Not the other way round. It’s a valid and important question. I have no idea why you’d oppose such a question.
-
It comes back to the point - what is bias? What is industry influence? How does it affect trials? Your claim is that it makes trials entirely worthless and not worth considering at all. I find that idea unsupported by best evidence
- 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.
. So why didn't they include that info in the SR?