13/n But further to this, the number given in the meta-analysis of -2.4 is wrong, as it should be 3.0-0.4 = -2.6 So it's wrong in two ways, both of them very bad for this analysis
-
-
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 -
-
-
I did a radio interview on this yesterday, starting off basically saying it’s kind of soothing but don’t expect much and ending up FOR GOONESS SAKES DON’T GIVE KIDS HOME REMEDIES WITH AMMONIA IN THEM!!!! (And warning about being careful of oral administration of eucalyptus oil)
-
Talkback radio is ... interesting
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.