Here's a question - why aren't we fact-checking systematic reviews and meta-analyses?
-
-
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 -
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.