Similarly, subjective measures are pretty difficult to use in a study like this. I can't think of any that are feasible to collect, although happy to be proven wrong. The study did, however, use a large number of subjective measures, all of which improved. So again "probably no"
-
-
If I was to put it all into the RoB 2 calculator it would probably come up with "Some risk of bias", so moderate most likely. Then a judgement call - it's about as rigorous as a study could be on this topic - to say that it's probably moderate-low
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Students4BE
re cognitive aspects. eg:That participants knew they were being encouraged to adopt cognitive strategies emphasising a sense of control, etc, make it difficult to judge that lack of blinding was unlikely to have on influence on self-reports on how IBS interferes with their life.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
For 4.5 of RoB 2 they give "patient-reported symptoms in trials of homeopathy" as an example of an outcome where knowledge of intervention received would be likely to influence assessment of outcome. Why do you think this would be less of an issue with CBT?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MEMilitant1 @Students4BE
? Not what I said. I said this study controlled for that by using quite a wide variety of self-reported measures. Given that it's impossible to assess IBS objectively, that's likely the best you can do
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Students4BE
So0rry if I misunderstood, but if you agree 4.5 is 'yes', then isn't it necessarily a high-risk of bias? That was the only section where I thought we might be disagreeing. For overall risk of bias, trial classed as 'high risk' even if only one domain is high risk.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MEMilitant1 @Students4BE
Apologies, I'm getting confused with the new tool. The answer would be that they used patient-reported outcomes, but whether that indicates a high risk of bias is a judgement call, and I'd say no in this case due to the things I've mentioned
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Students4BE
"Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received?" with patient-reported symptoms in trials of homeopathy given as example of 'yes', & you'd answer 'no' for this CBT trial relying on subjective self-report? I don't understand why.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MEMilitant1 @Students4BE
No it is certainly likely that the assessment was influenced. Whether this biases the study, however, is another question, and that's the point. They implemented a number of controls to reduce this bias, so I'd argue that it's not a high risk
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Students4BE
But if you agree assessment was likely influenced then following RoB2 you necessarily get a high risk of bias in that domain. I'm not so impressed by their other controls to reduce bias, but subjective judgements on that are outside of this assessment tool anyway.pic.twitter.com/N71k4eBTat
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Mmm that's the default, but as I said RoB assessment isn't a hard rule. Look at the sentence underneath the title of that graphicpic.twitter.com/ZhtiXjh7bq
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @Students4BE
That line wasn't in the copy I was looking at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jjOMDIZMtDcXS9QFD-n8DIRlp06CRLEc/view … My 'necessarily' may have been too strong, but I don't see any clear reason for over-riding the default for this trial. It fulfils that RoB2 criteria for 'high risk', and with good reason imo.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MEMilitant1 @Students4BE
Oh odd. I just went to the Cochrane site and navigated to the RoB tool. I've said why I don't think it's high risk so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.