Search results

This policy does nothing to address problems of the past. It continues to ignore the fact that Cochrane reviews uncritically include studies such as PACE (and also ludicruously underpowered studies that even NICE ignore) in its reviews and ignores methodological weaknesses which may or may not...

Great. Another person I thought might be concerned about this bites the dust...

Sure enough - it's not been posted. So much for free speech eh?!

OK. Well I posted a comment in agreement the one that questioned whether lack of equipoise was only a problem with patients, and it didn't get through the approval stage (presumably because I mentioned PACE), so I posted another one saying I was keen to join the discussion, but having trouble...

A couple of comments have now appeared....maybe try again??

I had to take out all mention of PACE and the Cochrane Exercise review to get my rapid response to the Risk of Bias tool paper published. 32, member: 682"]Haven't we had this problem with BMJ Blogs before...?

I will try and remember to do this, but am on leave today. Please someone else go ahead and break the news!

She's mates with Wessley. Worked together at Queen Mary?? Check this awful article out https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/69/1/197/523356

Errr. Probably not. I think they get sent to at least the first author....

This is why we need The Research Police!

Do this panel of intelligent people not think that using school records to identify kids who miss a lot of school and then writing to their parents out of the blue to invite them to attend a "pilot" school clinic is something that should have ethical oversight? Where is a copy of the letters...

Yes. Good double blind trials of homeopathy as described above would be easy and cheap. The homeopathic medicine makers are rich and could fund these studies. Like pharma fund trials of their drugs because they have to get them licensed and so design them to favour the drug and spin the...

Finally finally after my having to remove any reference to the "P" word or the problems with the Exercise Review, and chase a couple of times, my not very rapid Rapid Response got published https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4898/rr-3 woohoo!!!!!

I have now...but only just. I have quickly read the comments but not the report. Can't wait.... :-/

I have deleted these posts as they are speculative (in part) and not constructive

The BMJ didn't publish my response even after I shortened it, so I posted it on my blog https://healthycontrolblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/comment-on-rob-2-a-revised-tool-for-assessing-risk-of-bias-in-randomised-trials/

Finally I submitted the rapid response to the BMJ and they didn't publish it!! I spent hours and hours honing it, and got some excellent feedback which improved it immensely, so that was a bit annoying. So I posted it on my blog...and tagged @jonathanasterne...

Thank you so much for this fantastic and clear explanation The trouble with the risk of bias tool is that the judgements are, at the end of the day, subjective (as we well know!). When these judgements are presented in individual reviews in a nice clear traffic light picture, the impression...

I am @Healthy_Control and found this excellent new thread just now without even being tagged! I have just submitted the following as a rapid response to the Risk of Bias 2 paper in the BMJ. It's amazing to see Sterne was PI on the 2012 paper... At the end of 2013 there was a debate held at...

Exactly right. But their reputation is as an incorruptible infallible group of independent scientists. The people with real power in the organisation are not scientists and they trust their volunteers to get it right. If the volunteer authors screw up due to incompetence or conflict of interest...