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 …
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
-
Update yes, but they definitely had different inclusion criteria. Looks like the new one included any study looking at mixed naturopathy methods Also, I disagree with this classification, some of these included studies were clinical audits rather than cohort studiespic.twitter.com/fQDYgd7oJW
- 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.