A fascinating COVID-19 pipeline that I had not thought about much is woeful, heavily-biased preprints of studies making their way into meta-analyses and being used in treatment protocols I reckon it's a very big problem
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @GidMK
me also - except substitute ‘preprints” for “papers”...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cshperspectives @GidMK
I have always had these concerns about meta-analyses because all data are not equal. Genuinely interested in how much worse the existence of preprints make things (I'm not arguing they don’t) and what does it tell us about inclusion/exclusion criteria people should be using?
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @cshperspectives @GidMK
Thinking of things like this (which predate clinical preprints) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201274 … All of this is a genuine question btw - as despite being a big supporter of preprints I too have been concerned about the issue you raise 1/2
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @cshperspectives @GidMK
There are terrible papers out there. No surprise there will be terrible meta-analyses too. The challenge amid a pandemic is that the newest info will often not be peer reviewed. It may be uncertain; it may also be critical, Should one include it or not? 2/2
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
I agree wholeheartedly - I don't think this is confined to preprints at all. I do think that there's been a general breakdown of critical review when it comes to papers recently, and that's not a problem with preprints
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.