Rather than individual studies, we should trust systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, as most systematic reviews are not well done they need watching..
Joined September 2019
- Tweets10
- Following0
- Followers34
- Likes0
Pinned Tweet
Our standard methods
GRADE: gradeworkinggroup.org/
AMSTAR 2: amstar.ca/Amstar-2.php
ROBIS: bristol.ac.uk/population-heaโฆ
PRISMA: prisma-statement.org/
We assess only critical items required for correctness due to resource constraints, "desperate times call for desperate measures"
Systematic Review Watch retweeted
Here's a new meta-analysis of learning and satisfaction across different techinques. And, yet again:
"๐๐๐๐ง๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐จ๐๐ฉ๐๐จ๐๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฃ๐๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐จ๐จ๐ค๐๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐ก๐ก ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐จ."
frontiersin.org/articles/10.โฆ
QuickAppraisal: review that addresses lab values and has probably value only for specialized audiences, very low quality (Amstar), high risk of bias (Robis) reports selectively favorable results in abstract, does not assess risk of bias and totally misunderstands purpose of RoB
effects of whole-grain compared with refined wheat, rice, and rye on the postprandial blood glucose response: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials academic.oup.com/ajcn/articlโฆ
Claim: New systematic review suggests certain types of medicine information services may be effective.
Quality of evidence (GRADE): Language in article would suggest promising low quality evidence, however quality of evidence would be very low in GRADE (cross sectional surveys.)
Our systematic review on meds helplines published today. More evidence than we expected, UK & international. Lots of benefits reported by patients, but evidence weak. Lots of calls fix errors & prevent harm.
@JScottUoB @drabbiejordan @UKMedicinesInfo
bit.ly/2kIxNlD
Risk of bias in SR (ROBIS): high risk of bias: Numerous issues as already listed + most serious problem nowhere in abstract or even conclusions is mentioned that evidence comes from cross-sectional studies with no control only!!
Our confidence: Absolutely no idea, coin flip?
QuickAppraisal:
Evidence lacking whether mindfulness interventions are effective for health professionals. Review would be low or very low quality in Amstar 2 due to not listing excluded studies but the results and conclusions formulated well and critically
Some issues in potentially interesting new systematic review: Strong conclusions without appropriate and systematic consideration of uncertainty and pubbias (e.g. GRADE) Uses non-interpretable effect sizes (odds ratios), is not pre-registered, no meta-analytic data for reanalysis
A NEW๐ฅ systematic review & meta-analysis in OFID
โจNo differences in clinical outcomes between carbapenems and non-carba ฮฒ-lactams in cIAIs.
โจClinical /micro failure more in Pts treated with imipenem vs alternative ฮฒ-lactams mono /combination.
#IDTwitter academic.oup.com/ofid/advancโฆ
