-
-
-
Replying to @TamarHaspel @GidMK
Stay tuned.
@zad and I are working up a post for@Examinecom we hope to put out later this week/early next1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @IKnowNutrition @TamarHaspel and
There's so much to discuss evidentially, I think there'll be a lot of academic arguments over these SRs. For one thing, they've combined statistical heterogeneity into a risk-of-bias assessment which is different to say the least
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @IKnowNutrition and
Another point I find fascinating is that they characterized risks as "very small" based on absolute risk - in a population context that's definitely not best practice!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @IKnowNutrition and
Also, a bit of an odd research methodology - they excluded studies that were 'small' (<1,000 participants), but I can't see a justification for that. One of the RCT MAs was basically a recitation of a single study that didn't look at their intervention of interest directly
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yep! Very odd. It was this one - they excluded everything except for the Women's Health trial, then downgraded the evidence from WHI because that trial didn't really look at their intervention of interest (lowering red meat consumption) https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752326/effect-lower-versus-higher-red-meat-intake-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes …
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.
