Response by critics to updated review of "whole practice" naturopathy evidence is interesting. Authors explicitly state they use same methods as gov review conducted 6yrs ago. Critics lauded rigour of gov review, but claim methods in this review are flawed https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-08/southern-cross-university-naturopathy-study/10879232 …
Also, quite frankly, I don't understand how this conclusion matches at all with their risk of bias assessment. If there are no studies that are not at a high risk of bias, how can you conclude that "it is effective"???pic.twitter.com/3PPG234iC0
-
-
I'll have a read in more detail, but this seems like a brilliant example of how 2 different reviews of the same info can come to completely different conclusions. Depends entirely on how high a bar you set for "evidence" and what you include in the review!
-
They weren't the reviews of the same information. It's an update. Initial review went up to 2013 and found one systematic review containing 6 RCTs with 692 patients. This 2019 review identified 31 RCTs comprising 9,798 patients
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I was raising was more about validity of search criteria. When gov review limited search (inappropriately IMO) to "whole practice" studies it was lauded as only viable option. Now they say "whole practice" inappropriate because it doesn't fit their personal idea of naturopathy
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.