But, as I've said, there are many sources of bias. Excluding one based on "it's not rocket science" doesn't really make sense Also, I imagine there are many Level A industry-funded studies. That's pretty much the point I'm making here
Right. But there's no justification - that I can see - for such a project, aside from "industry is bad, duh". So it seems to me that, if the methodology used was evidence-based, the analysis you're proposing would not add to the evidence base
-
-
Was the methodology evidence-based, in your expert opinion as an epidemiologist?
-
Definitely. The NHMRC has done a lot of work to provide good recommendations on reviews such as these, and I think the academics were eminently qualified.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You've not answered though - Is GRADE C evidence enough to make food recommendations for an entire population? PShttps://twitter.com/WeDietitians/status/1004573763759833088 …
-
Yes, because it was off-topic and I've already answered that question. But, ok. Yes. Definitely. Most public health interventions are based on Grade C evidence - smoking legislation, seatbelts, some vaccines etc - it's often not possible/ethical to run RCTs on every question!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Tweeting from train to "healthsville"... methodology - SR&MA was not under dispute at all here. In fact, I'd said, SR&MA IS equipped to run sensitivity analysis to answer the question "what would the ADG look like if we removed industry-funded research"?
-
And, as I've said, you've offered no scientific justification for that question. Why not just use the current guidelines?
- 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.