If a systematic review finds only small, poorly-done studies on a topic but they have mostly null results should it conclude #EpiTwitter
-
Show this thread
-
I think this is a really interesting question. On the one hand, if there are no good studies then we may not have answered the question. On the other, if we ignore pilot/small studies, what's the point of doing them in the first place?
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
And if we always call for more research, where does that end? Where is the cutoff between not an answer and an answer?
6 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Depends on who cares about the topic. If it's children dropping dead in the street, onwards. If it's some deeply obscure quasi-metaphorical psychological bollocks, bin it. You didn't say anything about the MECHANISM. Gimme a prior.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jamesheathers
I think most of the examples I've seen are unimportant possibly bollocks. I don't think I've ever seen an SR on something killing children that hasn't included bigger studies because that shit attracts funding
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The study that made me think of the question was whether wearable technology made children lose weight, ended with a call for more research despite: a) all included studies being negative b) this effect not happening in adults
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.