I'm not talking going through risk of bias assessments or even the meta-analytic code, but just simple things like whether all the studies meet the inclusion criteria or running the search terms and seeing if the numbers match their PRISMA diagram
-
-
Show this thread
-
The reason I'm so interested is that the first study I tried this on - one that I've cited in my blog before - failed these basic checks They included a cohort study despite specifying only RCTspic.twitter.com/K9a5Vm4wPR
Show this thread -
They also - and this is the kicker - rated the random sequence generation of the trial as "at low risk of bias" despite there being no random sequence generation (the study didn't even use the word "random" or any similar term)pic.twitter.com/b8B1fs5j6Q
Show this thread -
The study is here check for yourself: http://www.annfammed.org/content/11/5/452.long#ref-6 …
Show this thread -
Thing is, that's maybe not a big error. A single matched cohort included in a review that supposedly only looked at RCTs But that was just the first review I picked out. I wonder how common this is?
Show this thread -
Most people don't go through eligibility criteria and comb through studies to check systematic reviews - it's incredibly time-consuming and tedious. I know I don't Maybe we should
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This terrifies me honest bc we're doing lit reviews just now and I'm constantly plagued by the notion that I could be more rigorous
Thanks. 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.