Preskoči na sadržaj
Korištenjem servisa na Twitteru pristajete na korištenje kolačića. Twitter i partneri rade globalno te koriste kolačiće za analize, personalizaciju i oglase.

Za najbolje sučelje na Twitteru koristite Microsoft Edge ili instalirajte aplikaciju Twitter iz trgovine Microsoft Store.

  • Naslovnica Naslovnica Naslovnica, trenutna stranica.
  • O Twitteru

Spremljena pretraživanja

  • obriši
  • U ovom razgovoru
    Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
Predloženi korisnici
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Jezik: Hrvatski
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • Ελληνικά
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Imate račun? Prijava
    Imate račun?
    · Zaboravili ste lozinku?

    Novi ste na Twitteru?
    Registrirajte se
Profil korisnika/ce briandavidearp
Brian D. Earp
Brian D. Earp
Brian D. Earp
@briandavidearp

Tweets

Brian D. Earp

@briandavidearp

@Yale @UniofOx @hastingscenter: philosophy, cogsci, bioethics, science+medicine, psychedelic policy, sexuality, gender equality, bodily integrity, child rights

sup.org/books/title/?i…
Vrijeme pridruživanja: srpanj 2011.

Tweets

  • © 2020 Twitter
  • O Twitteru
  • Centar za pomoć
  • Uvjeti
  • Pravila o privatnosti
  • Imprint
  • Kolačići
  • Informacije o oglasima
Odbaci
Prethodni
Sljedeće

Idite na profil osobe

Spremljena pretraživanja

  • obriši
  • U ovom razgovoru
    Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
Predloženi korisnici
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @

Odjava

Blokiraj

  • Objavi Tweet s lokacijom

    U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više

    Vaši popisi

    Izradi novi popis


    Manje od 100 znakova, neobavezno

    Privatnost

    Kopiraj vezu u tweet

    Ugradi ovaj Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Dodajte ovaj Tweet na svoje web-mjesto kopiranjem koda u nastavku. Saznajte više

    Dodajte ovaj videozapis na svoje web-mjesto kopiranjem koda u nastavku. Saznajte više

    Hm, došlo je do problema prilikom povezivanja s poslužiteljem.

    Integracijom Twitterova sadržaja u svoje web-mjesto ili aplikaciju prihvaćate Twitterov Ugovor za programere i Pravila za programere.

    Pregled

    Razlog prikaza oglasa

    Prijavi se na Twitter

    · Zaboravili ste lozinku?
    Nemate račun? Registrirajte se »

    Prijavite se na Twitter

    Niste na Twitteru? Registrirajte se, uključite se u stvari koje vas zanimaju, i dobivajte promjene čim se dogode.

    Registrirajte se
    Imate račun? Prijava »

    Dvosmjerni (slanje i primanje) kratki kodovi:

    Država Kod Samo za korisnike
    Sjedinjene Američke Države 40404 (bilo koje)
    Kanada 21212 (bilo koje)
    Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Irska 51210 Vodafone, O2
    Indija 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonezija 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italija 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » Pogledajte SMS kratke šifre za druge zemlje

    Potvrda

     

    Dobro došli kući!

    Vremenska crta mjesto je na kojem ćete provesti najviše vremena i bez odgode dobivati novosti o svemu što vam je važno.

    Tweetovi vam ne valjaju?

    Prijeđite pokazivačem preko slike profila pa kliknite gumb Pratim da biste prestali pratiti neki račun.

    Kažite mnogo uz malo riječi

    Kada vidite Tweet koji volite, dodirnite srce – to osobi koja ga je napisala daje do znanja da vam se sviđa.

    Proširite glas

    Najbolji je način da podijelite nečiji Tweet s osobama koje vas prate prosljeđivanje. Dodirnite ikonu da biste smjesta poslali.

    Pridruži se razgovoru

    Pomoću odgovora dodajte sve što mislite o nekom tweetu. Pronađite temu koja vam je važna i uključite se.

    Saznajte najnovije vijesti

    Bez odgode pogledajte o čemu ljudi razgovaraju.

    Pratite više onoga što vam se sviđa

    Pratite više računa da biste dobivali novosti o temama do kojih vam je stalo.

    Saznajte što se događa

    Bez odgode pogledajte najnovije razgovore o bilo kojoj temi.

    Ne propustite nijedan aktualni događaj

    Bez odgode pratite kako se razvijaju događaji koje pratite.

    Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
    • Prijavi Tweet

    People seem interested in how a small group of researchers with an agenda can 'rig' a "systematic review" in medicine to make it say whatever they want, albeit dressed up in objective-sounding rhetoric. Here is a follow-up for those who want to see the details of how it is done.pic.twitter.com/yIE1BT1ohn

    15:55 - 29. pro 2018.
    • 570 proslijeđenih tweetova
    • 1.082 oznake „sviđa mi se”
    • Tracy Miller 🐣 Tibbit Tidbits Lygris Foregen Kopika Durinn McFurren Cor Strawberry Narwhal ‽ جمانة
    570 proslijeđenih tweetova 1.082 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
      1. Novi razgovor
      2. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        The case study from my previous thread was this highly-cited review by Morris & Krieger on the potential (adverse) sexual effects of male circumcision, published in the leading journal in this area, @jsexmed (https://bit.ly/2EWwBUy ). M&K reported "no conflict of interest," butpic.twitter.com/Hf8BCJVowV

        11 proslijeđenih tweetova 76 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      3. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        as I wrote, M is co-founder & chief spokesperson of a pro-circumcision lobbying organization petitioning 4 government insurance to cover medically unnecessary circumcisions, which would directly financially benefit several board members (see https://bit.ly/2QYZmWY ), and Kpic.twitter.com/rrdySItUmx

        12 proslijeđenih tweetova 101 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      4. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        had submitted a patent application months before the review came out for a new circumcision clamp (https://bit.ly/2An1uO1 ). If removing sensitive tissue from the penis (the foreskin) turned out to have negative sexual implications, this could be bad for business. Conveniently,pic.twitter.com/NInl1afOEY

        8 proslijeđenih tweetova 72 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      5. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        then, M&K discovered - after rating the available studies using SIGN criteria (https://bit.ly/2rZcBrC ) - that the high-quality studies "uniformly" showed no negative effects of circumcision, whereas all studies that DID report negative effects were of low quality. But aspic.twitter.com/PShksWIGqB

        7 proslijeđenih tweetova 65 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      6. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        @JennBossio pointed out in a little-noticed letter to the editor (https://bit.ly/2QXhZub ) SIGN guidelines require that quality ratings be done by a multidisciplinary panel carefully assembled to minimize any possible bias among raters, whereas M&K did all their *own* ratings.pic.twitter.com/5GJNwXD9jY

        1 reply 8 proslijeđenih tweetova 103 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      7. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        And as Boyle noted in an even more obscure rebuttal (https://bit.ly/2AkuNAy ), several of the ratings M&K assigned for quality seemed to track the results of the study (that is, whether it supported their conclusion or not), rather than the actual quality. So how was this done?pic.twitter.com/prx4WOOAww

        1 reply 4 proslijeđena tweeta 64 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      8. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        In the rest of this thread, I'll walk through a couple examples, so you can see the sleight-of-hand authors may sometimes use to assign ratings to studies that support their desired conclusion. Take a study by Masters & Johnson, which M&K rated 2++ for quality, which refers topic.twitter.com/TUdZeJNAOK

        6 proslijeđenih tweetova 54 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      9. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        "High-quality systematic reviews of cohort or case and control studies; cohort or case and control studies with very low risk of bias and high probability of establishing a causal relationship." Masters & Johnson reported "No clinically significant difference between the

        1 reply 3 proslijeđena tweeta 43 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      10. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        circumcised and uncircumcised glans" in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination (https://bit.ly/2LGPif8 ). Okay, so why should we think this study deserves the highest possible quality rating for a case-control study (2++)? The answer is: we shouldn't. The "study" consists

        1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 51 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      11. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        of a single paragraph (reproduced below) in the 1966 popular book by Masters and Johnson, "Human Sexual Response," in which they refer to some "routine neurological" tests they performed on a small sample of men. No description of the tools or methods used, nopic.twitter.com/bl9Ve9LOld

        4 proslijeđena tweeta 56 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      12. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        description of statistical analyses performed, no description of participant sample characteristics, no peer review, no nothing. It is literally impossible to evaluate the quality of the study by Masters & Johnson. Yet based on a single paragraph mentioning a "brief clinical

        3 proslijeđena tweeta 63 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      13. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        experiment" in passing in an out-of-print 1966 book, M&K rated this evidence as being of the *highest possible quality* (2++) for a case control study! At the same time, they rated a similar experiment by Sorrells et al. published in 2007 in the widely respected, peer-reviewed

        1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 70 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      14. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        British Journal of Urology as the *lowest possible quality* for a study of this kind (https://bit.ly/2JIgpbv ), despite more than twice the sample size, a priori power analysis, and exhaustive description of methods and tools used. How could this be so?pic.twitter.com/ggNKSuGiKl

        1 reply 4 proslijeđena tweeta 70 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      15. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        One possibility is that they didn't like the main findings reported by Sorrells et al. (2007), namely, that "the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis" and that the foreskin - which is removed by circumcision -pic.twitter.com/gHsUmbVLIO

        1 reply 7 proslijeđenih tweetova 62 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      16. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        contains the "most sensitive parts" of the penis to light touch - a finding later confirmed by Bossio et al. (https://bit.ly/2LDQGzi ) (yet bizarrely reported in the media such as @voxdotcom as supporting the exact opposite conclusion, as I discuss here: https://bit.ly/2LEn44H ).pic.twitter.com/S07MFoP9aq

        8 proslijeđenih tweetova 62 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      17. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        When explaining their lowered rating, M&K cite a letter to the editor, referring to "those who criticized" the Sorrells et al. study [53] <-- if you look at the reference, this is a letter by Morris himself, along with a co-author. Other researchers have noticed that this ispic.twitter.com/WLVgJjf6l1

        1 reply 6 proslijeđenih tweetova 55 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      18. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        consistent with a more general strategy employed by Morris (see screenshot below, from https://bit.ly/2QddGpw ), in which he writes a letter criticizing *any* study that appears to show a negative effect of circumcision, on whatever grounds he can think of, then later cites thispic.twitter.com/2F6sB3ETnS

        1 reply 6 proslijeđenih tweetova 59 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      19. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        in the third-person as *definitive* reason to reject the study & its conclusions, while failing to cite (much less engage) with the author responses 2 the original critique. Van Howe has recently documented this pattern in detail (see screenshot, from https://bit.ly/2LEZDsb ).pic.twitter.com/Dwa5r4gOZH

        1 reply 6 proslijeđenih tweetova 55 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      20. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        Nevertheless, if M&K wish to downgrade a study's quality based on a letter-to-the-editor critique, they should do so consistently. For example, consider the Randomized Control Trials they rated as quality 1++ (the highest possible level of quality for any study design). Thepic.twitter.com/nkkwSExheR

        1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 46 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      21. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        first thing to notice is that one of these trials was conducted *by Krieger* et al., so he is rating *his own study* as of highest possible quality. The potential for bias here is obviously substantial. Now, you might think that because it is an RCTpic.twitter.com/SLHZxFAitG

        1 reply 3 proslijeđena tweeta 56 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      22. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        it should automatically be rated as high-quality: RCTs are generally considered to be the 'gold standard' for establishing causation ... but *only* if they are well-designed and conducted. 'RCT' refers to a type of study design; it doesn't tell you anything about the quality of

        1 reply 4 proslijeđena tweeta 57 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      23. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        materials actually USED in the RCT, including whether they were fit for purpose, capable of detecting a difference should it exist, etc. This screenshot shows *just* the limitations mentioned in the study by Krieger et al., which M&K apparently judged not to matter for quality.pic.twitter.com/sUtqBSNvXS

        1 reply 4 proslijeđena tweeta 47 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      24. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        But critiques by others had been raised before the M&K review, which they certainly were aware of because they came in an author reply letter responding to one of Morris's 'rebuttals' (see screenshot below, from https://bit.ly/2QddGpw ). In short: the questionnaires used inpic.twitter.com/hSnd0DvrUw

        1 reply 3 proslijeđena tweeta 43 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      25. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        RCTs were badly designed & likely couldn't have shown a difference in sexual outcomes anyway (so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Other studies have shown *major* differences (see below, from https://bit.ly/2LJPyKE ). But these were rated as "low quality" by M&K.pic.twitter.com/ci9n30OuCc

        1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 49 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      26. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        This is just a couple of the studies they rated, and you can already see how there is enormous room for subjective judgments about whether a study of a given design should be 'upgraded' or 'downgraded' in terms of quality, based on whether one favors the study results or not. So

        1 reply 4 proslijeđena tweeta 56 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      27. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        the more general lesson is: when you see a "systematic review" (or a meta-analysis, or an RCT, or any other scientific artifact claimed to represent the highest quality of evidence), you should not take this at face-value. Meta-analyses are often GIGO ("garbage in, garbage out"),

        1 reply 18 proslijeđenih tweetova 108 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      28. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        RTCs are often poorly designed, carried out, and/or analyzed, and then "prettied up" with an attempt by the authors to "spin" their findings in the most dramatic and conclusive direction they can manage; and systematic reviews are often partisan opinion in disguise. Yetpic.twitter.com/svolg2C7VC

        1 reply 11 proslijeđenih tweetova 72 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      29. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        doctors, policymakers, and ordinary citizens, rely on such studies, analyses, and reviews to decide what to believe about any given topic of importance to health and society. Even respected, professional organizations like the @AmerAcadPeds can reach unsupported conclusions based

        1 reply 7 proslijeđenih tweetova 63 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      30. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        on biased reports and biased interpretations of those reports by whoever happens to be selected to serve on a task force or committee (as I detail at length here https://bit.ly/2AgagNF ). In fact, like M&K, the AAP 2012 circumcision task force members failed to declarepic.twitter.com/2PzBpHeL2Y

        1 reply 9 proslijeđenih tweetova 54 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      31. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp 29. pro 2018.
        • Prijavi Tweet

        their financial and other conflicts of interest in their 2012 policy statement, only later adding a mention in a reply to a critique by international experts (see screenshot below). AAP task force member Dr. Andrew Freedman also forgot to declare his personal conflict of interestpic.twitter.com/95GrI8RJL4

        11 proslijeđenih tweetova 61 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      32. Još 6 drugih odgovora

    Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

    Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

      Sponzorirani tweet

      false

      • © 2020 Twitter
      • O Twitteru
      • Centar za pomoć
      • Uvjeti
      • Pravila o privatnosti
      • Imprint
      • Kolačići
      • Informacije o oglasima