@deviantgauge @CollignonPeter Did you look at the EPIC study? Double observational. BTW that old bromide on randomization is no longer significant. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
@DrToddLee Old bromide. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
@manscrewthisapp @IanCopeland5 @stkirsch No dumbass, RCT is the same as observational. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
@orntwo @KashPrime Are you under the impression that RCT is superior to observational? https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
@RogerSeheult @IanCopeland5 "there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interv
@DeepBlackMirror @DocMuc65 @Friesin13 @SHomburg Mit Beobachtungsstudien. Sind nicht schlechter als RPCT https://t.co/j2Y2APyHwI
@GrumpyTurtleAI @DocMuc65 @Friesin13 @SHomburg Mit Beobachtungsstudien? Gut angelegt sind die nicht schlechter als RPCT, wie auch Cochrane gezeigt hat. https://t.co/j2Y2APyHwI 1
@InWuchang Dumbass. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
RT @sudokuvariante: [9] https://t.co/XbcOWdNvVd [10] https://t.co/MxAcK1LLfM [11] https://t.co/ie8Y5H6vX3 [12] https://t.co/s33E213KZr [13]…
RT @sudokuvariante: [9] https://t.co/XbcOWdNvVd [10] https://t.co/MxAcK1LLfM [11] https://t.co/ie8Y5H6vX3 [12] https://t.co/s33E213KZr [13]…
RT @sudokuvariante: [9] https://t.co/XbcOWdNvVd [10] https://t.co/MxAcK1LLfM [11] https://t.co/ie8Y5H6vX3 [12] https://t.co/s33E213KZr [13]…
RT @sudokuvariante: [9] https://t.co/XbcOWdNvVd [10] https://t.co/MxAcK1LLfM [11] https://t.co/ie8Y5H6vX3 [12] https://t.co/s33E213KZr [13]…
[9] https://t.co/XbcOWdNvVd [10] https://t.co/MxAcK1LLfM [11] https://t.co/ie8Y5H6vX3 [12] https://t.co/s33E213KZr [13] https://t.co/NbM2E8K8y9 [14] https://t.co/T55VvEZsSk [15] https://t.co/OvxkAXykPJ 36/36
@ACasadevall1 "there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions." htt
@Disproofed @ScientistSwanda Your indifferent reading ability is your problem not mine. Your summary is just plain silly. The article does not such thing. FYI https://t.co/6pk4XAHQaK.
@Aging_Scientist @JohnArnoldFndtn @Atelfo This Cochrane review argues otherwise, claiming that observational studies generally match RCTs well: https://t.co/LFVmfTOxD1 "Our results across all reviews [..] are very similar to results reported by similarly
RT @masimaux: In 2014, Anglemyer et al. did a Cochrane review/meta-analysis of 15 reviews covering 1583 meta-analyses for 228 different med…
RT @masimaux: In 2014, Anglemyer et al. did a Cochrane review/meta-analysis of 15 reviews covering 1583 meta-analyses for 228 different med…
In 2014, Anglemyer et al. did a Cochrane review/meta-analysis of 15 reviews covering 1583 meta-analyses for 228 different medical conditions with mean 178 studies per paper. https://t.co/gPDlxOxCdW Read authors' conclusions. Valid for https://t.co/aydu
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
RT @cremieuxrecueil: Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control…
Cochrane Review (2014): https://t.co/6cqw1oJmaH JCE replication (2019): https://t.co/C8msZcfaNQ BMC Medicine replication I (2022): https://t.co/QNBAX3HkDw BMC Medicine replication II (2022): https://t.co/8LTX48Ypmp
Incredible! RCT effects were - Indistinguishable from ones from cohort studies - Indistinguishable from case control effects - Indistinguishable from PSM effects Now the hard part is determining if this says something good about observational studies or
@br_cse_iitb @crabb_vicki LMFAO. 5.5 billion vaccinated and 13 billion shots, and you are concerned about RCT. BTW RCT is no different from observational studies in outcomes. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
@zabigfrench1 @SahabiaAli @lePlaymobil28 @Nibor_Tolum @arikouts @RichtenHeart @TroncheBiais @decoder_l Une revue Cochrane peine à trouver des résultats différents issus de méthodologies différentes et suggère que si c'est le cas, c'est peut-être du à d'aut
@QI_181 @raoult_didier Peut-être, par contre il sait faire des études observationnelles (sans lien d'intérêt avec les grands groupes pharmaceutiques), et lire les articles montrant qu'il n'y pas de supériorité dans la pratique entre RCT et études observati
@QI_181 @raoult_didier Peut-être, je ne connais pas les compétences de Raoult en termes de RCT. Par contre, lui, il sait lire les articles montrant qu'il n'y pas de supériorité dans la pratique entre RCT et études observationnelles. https://t.co/5FMp6g5iw
@QI_181 @Titithebest4 @raoult_didier Amen! Sauf que dans la pratique, il n'y a pas de supériorité des RCT face aux études observationnelles: https://t.co/5FMp6g4KGR
@pmcdunnough ‘doctoring’ searches for climate change or medical topics to be in line with UN and WHO narratives respectively. One needs independent media and internet search engines to stay informed. RCT’s control medicine but Big $$ control RCT’s. Are th
@Rockydogmd1 @RogerSeheult Good points! It seems assumed without proof that good RCTs are better than good observational studies. But is there actual proof of that? This study found "little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between obse
@CaryDavid722 @sjs856 For your lazy ass: https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
@CaryDavid722 @sjs856 Again, you are an idiot. https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
@CaryDavid722 @sjs856 Mr. Dumb Ass: https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
@ansgarjohn @MarionKoopmans @BareReality Yes because the science has shown that to be a spurious correlation: https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
@hardjappaleno @DennisRadTech @Debunk_the_Funk @joshg99 Lol "of course they don’t want RCTs" https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
@DreaWinter76 @KPatrick1971 @gorskon No, you should take away that once you mentioned RCT, those of us in science/medicine knew you were talking bull squirt. https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
@fluidloading Rappel étude Cochrane 2014 "Nos résultats apportent peu de preuves indiquant des différences significatives au niveau de l'estimation de l'effet entre les études observationnelles et les ECR" La messe et les croyances c'est à l'église pas à
@boulware_dr Actually, many times it does trump RCT. In my profession there are numerous examples of RCT showing that drugs were safe and effective and subsequently proven to be neither by observational studies. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO
@PGtzsche1 https://t.co/s33E213KZr A team even developped a new tool to exclude more studies from cochrane reviews: https://t.co/48ewWdTqbW 2/n
Deciphering the myths of Randomized Controlled Trials: - in Social Science & Medicine: https://t.co/4h7MAT6WK4 - in NEJM: https://t.co/N5Q0C16iF9 - in Cochrane: https://t.co/3NuapoHjCR
@QI_181 @TonJeanne By the way, ça c'est cadeau (2014): https://t.co/3NuapoHjCR
@WambierMD @boulware_dr I hope you don't suck at derm this bad. https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
RT @yohei_econ: 例えばこのCochran Reviewは、健康分野を対象として観察研究とRCTの結果を比較していますが、両者の推定値に有意な差はないという結論を得ています。医療・健康分野だと交絡の調整である程度バイアスを取り除けるような感触を持っています。 h…
@strauss_matt Perhaps you should also read a little bit on RCT's. Your statement is silly considering the science. Here is your own source and more. https://t.co/e7avaA45Ln https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
@cam_o_gram @GidMK LOL RCT's. I am in a profession that has seen numerous RCT's that indicate that drugs are safe and effective and turned out to be neither. Here is the science. https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx Here is for infectious diseases in which you compar
@JesperKitos You look at the totality of the evidence - RCT, OCT, epidemiologic, case reports/series/clinical experiences weighing all together. The littlest known fact in modern medicine (suppressed on purpose) is found in this paper below, I suggest you
@JesperKitos You look at the totality of the evidence - RCT, OCT, epidemiologic, case reports/series/clinical experiences weighing all together. The littlest known fact in modern medicine (suppressed on purpose) is found in this paper, I suggest you read i
@anko_979 @rdmorris Neither appropriate for short lead in time but: "little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs" https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
@gorskon "Our results provide little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs..." https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
@BallouxFrancois @PaulNuki I read that. You would obviously have to critique the observational studies but you'd have to do that for RCTs also as many are flawed. Want to try this? https://t.co/ydD1xKPkFj.
@DrJBhattacharya There is no evidence randomized trials are superior to observational. https://t.co/6pk4XAHQaK.
@BenBrennecke @ThomasMoore112 @gcomeaudotcom Si un essai clinique en double aveugle sur le même produit, produit deux résultats complètement contradictoire, il y a en a un qui est frauduleux, bon la Cochrane ici est très diplomate quand même https://t.co/n
@19joho @RxRegA One tiny point. RCT is not superior to Observational. I am biased, however, seeing numerous RCT's indicate drugs were safe and effective but were neither. https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx
@DocPepper_FR Selon Cochrane il existe peu de différence dans les résultats entre une étude observationnelle et une ERC. Bon, ça c’était avant le Covid… https://t.co/zRvNwWnzIz
@MarkChangizi LOL. RCT. https://t.co/We7ix424jp
@Nodo23049099 @marc_g_wathelet @CorinneReverbel Il y’a également les études prophylaxie dont l’efficacité avec le double aveugle est équivalente ⤵️ https://t.co/CjYImJM5wX
@JeanneNoble18 Little evidence RCT superior or different results (Cochrane). Sorry, I'm a pharmacist who is biased and who has seen it fail numerous times in showing that a drug was safe and effective but was not. https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx https://t.co/G
@GValeau @BaretLouis @ArtavusO Il n’existe pas de différence entre un essai et une étude observationelle … Dommage … https://t.co/CjYImJM5wX