If a systematic review doesn't consider methodology, it's incredibly badly done.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @Raven_PA_ and
I have seen perhaps 2 SRs that were that bad, and interestingly both looked at supplements.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Raven_PA_ @GeoffSchuler and
Which brings us right back to; arguing using a couple of small studies is...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
2 prospective studies examining biological possibilities of milk thistle...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
1 lit review that incorrectly cites information from 3 studies I have looked at so far...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
...and the same RCT that you linked before, which as I mentioned is superseded by a more recent SR.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's interesting that you haven't cited this meta-analysis; http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/113648 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Which at first glance looks like good evidence, but sadly is very poorly conducted in a number of ways.
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.