In what possible way is this not methodological? You're making a specific methodological argument - that we should exclude all industry funded trials from analyses
There's a difference between status quo wrt chronic disease (not ok) and the scientific evidence-base of the guidelines (ok) Industry influence is included in grading studies, the NHMRC papers on this are thorough and extremely good
-
-
You think the way "industry funded was considered" is good enough. I do not. For those tuning in - on the "quality" data-extraction tool for the ADG SR - the question was "do you [the reviewer] consider the funding source had an influence on the conclusion" (or similar)
-
...that's literally how bias works though! If it didn't have an influence on the conclusion, then the funding makes no difference at all, surely?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
1) I see status quo in chronic disease being linked inextricably to status quo of guidelines. Guidelines have been around for a long while. Have they worked? 2) No one disputes that they were included in grading. We disagree on the standard for "thorough" and "extremely good".
-
1) disagree. It depends on whether you consider them useful or The Cure For All Disease. As the former, yes of course. 2) I suggest you take it up with the NHMRC. The documents on how to grade evidence are based on Cochrane methodology, among others, and are world class
- 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.