16/n If I go through the studies, I really can't find any that I would rate as a "low" risk of bias. Most of them are "high", some of them are really worryingly bad
-
-
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 -
-
-
Reading the review it seems that Waris reported data in a way that didn't fit with the studies in the statistical meta-analysis so it's reported narratively in the 'honey vs placebo' section
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.