15/n I haven't gone through every study yet, but every one that I have is similarly worrying. I can't actually find a study that I'm not worried about in this analysis
-
-
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.