10/n They also don't describe blinding of clinical staff, and actually from reading I'm fairly sure the doctors could tell which medication the patients were taking
-
-
21/n Not something that'll make headlines, perhaps, but sadly that's often how these things go
Show this thread -
22/n N.B. this study has already hit ~800 on Altmetric, been covered internationally, and made huge newspic.twitter.com/bj72yqShfA
Show this thread -
23/n Something else I didn't mention. Every study that I've looked at so far used a per-protocol analysis, which is a huge and worrying issue All of these should be at a high risk of attrition bias, yet none were rated as such. Most of them were green (low risk)pic.twitter.com/Y6sXlnkJHe
Show this thread -
24/n I've gotta say, for anyone teaching students about how finicky bias can be in systematic reviews, this is a beautiful example of getting it wrong
Show this thread -
25/n Somehow there are more issues here. This study was included in the risk of bias, but even though it assessed honey vs placebo/salbutamonl (and found no effect) it is not in any of the meta-analyses Very weirdpic.twitter.com/8AaMA85ERm
Show this thread -
26/n This is even weirder when you consider that the authors report excluding a study for not providing data So they exclude one study and report it, but another just...disappears? So strangepic.twitter.com/oyrp57yP1Y
Show this thread -
27/n Another included study using a per-protocol analysis. This was at least rated correctly as at a high risk of biaspic.twitter.com/t2mRMIq539
Show this thread -
28/n Another one. This study was rated at low risk of bias for most domains. Here's how they described their randomization and allocation concealment. What do you think?pic.twitter.com/1NM606xcRg
Show this thread -
29/n I'll give you a head-start - if they literally don't report ~how~ patients were randomized, by definition this should be unclear or high risk of bias for the domain of random sequence generation
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.