I've just found another ivermectin study that was rated as low risk of bias by two separate teams of meta-researchers but contains very crudely impossible values in the paper Do people even read the studies they rate???
-
-
I totally agree. & what you find is more important than what Jadad, etc, do. But I think for data & design problems, etc, to be regularly ID'd, they will need a Jada-like paint-by-numbers score to guide it. Something usable by a med student & doesn't need you or
@sTeamTraen. -
Just make more of him, should be easy
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've looked at 6 different IVM studies, and all of them are way too small and/or so badly set up, any result is completely meaningless Did you look at the big Mexican one? This one seemed reasonable at first glance, untill you read it more closely. Curious what you think about it
-
Which study? I'm getting lost in all of the ivermectin stuff
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
For a low risk of bias with Jadad, all you need to do is state that the study is randomized and blinded, state the randomization and blinding methods, and report dropouts. Then you get the maximum score ie “low risk of bias” regardless of the rest of the paper
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.