28/n This actually makes perfect sense when you think about it. Remember, the ABSOLUTE risk increase of miscarriage for women who drink caffeine is pretty small - 1-2% - so it doesn't really make sense to say that up to a third of miscarriages are caused by caffeine
-
Show this thread
-
29/n And yet, these figures were picked up in the media and thrown around as if certainly true, which is very worrying!pic.twitter.com/5v3SQPeKtn
1 reply 0 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
30/n More broadly speaking, do we know that caffeine causes bad pregnancy outcomes? That is a VERY tricky question to answer
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
31/n This narrative review argues yes, absolutely, and while most people would agree a LOT of caffeine is a problem, much previous research has said that small amounts are probably not so badpic.twitter.com/50siPcJ8HD
4 replies 1 retweet 24 likesShow this thread -
32/n This narrative review argues that all such studies are the product of industry funding, which is not entirely untrue, but also doesn't really tell the whole story given that it disagrees with non-industry studies as wellpic.twitter.com/ynC0gKO1nj
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
33/n Ultimately, reviews like this come down to opinions Do we think that Prof James is correct and caffeine is definitely bad? Well, maybe. It depends on your perspective I think
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
34/n What we can't say is that this is new evidence, or even that we've proven anything here. It's one well-researched opinion that you may or may not agree with
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
35/n Anyway, regardless of what you think of the review, it's probably worth correcting the inaccurate table
@BMJ_EBM4 replies 2 retweets 48 likesShow this thread -
36/n Also, for the record, I think the conclusions are pretty massively overstated, and also miss out a key part of recommendations which is the question of whether they'll be followed!pic.twitter.com/uPDQfv4aHI
3 replies 0 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
I always find using the presence of "dose response" as a separator between association and causation odd. Many (most) spurious associations in interval data would have evidence "dose-response". E.g. do birthday parties vs stroke risk? % paternal grey hair and Achondroplasia?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
People picking and choosing their Bradford Hill criteria
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.