@TracyBethHoeg @VPrasadMDMPH Because RCT is the standard for drug indications. But there is no difference: https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx

@subsix848 LMFAO. Randomized studies have been found to be the same as observational studies. You might want to keep up with the literature. https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx

RT @mjb302: @dgurdasani1 https://t.co/bpx4d3I8pr

@dgurdasani1 https://t.co/bpx4d3I8pr

"A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness." https://t.co/bpx4d3I8pr

A cochrane review comparing RCTs to observational studies also concluded there was no diffference. https://t.co/bpx4d3I8pr "It is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or o

@NormalBirthBRAZ Todos os observacionais são positivos. Por unanimidade. Todos os RCTs em tratamento ambulatorial, por unanimidade também, os que tomaram HCQ se saíram melhor do que os que tomaram placebo. É o que eu esperava. Historicamente coincidem.

@pmcdunnough https://t.co/v4YlflJUCV

RT @PierreKory: @reznavajo two individual trials of different designs differing in conclusions is standard in science. What I was asking fo…

RT @PierreKory: @reznavajo two individual trials of different designs differing in conclusions is standard in science. What I was asking fo…

@reznavajo two individual trials of different designs differing in conclusions is standard in science. What I was asking for is an analysis of two different trial designs on various therapies which reach different conclusions on average across multiple dis

@JeffSpies "Our results provide little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs," https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx

@LgrdFred123 @marquise_madame @VeritasNobis @JIDEPh @xazalbert @DidierMaisto @Poulin2012 dans ce lien lien , une cochrane qui démontre que les études observationnelles sont tout autant valabless que les etudes randomisées , que tu le veuilles ou non . http

@marquise_madame @VeritasNobis @JIDEPh @xazalbert @DidierMaisto @Poulin2012 Et donc ? Tu preferes une seule etude bien randomisée avec prescription bidon plutot que 18 unanimes dont des randomisée en en plus ... Tiens une autre ( cochrane ) qui démontre q

@6fores1 @Xoxoxooh1 @MonicaGandhi9 Well apparently you don't have "common sense" whatever that is: https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@OUsuperfan1983 @VPrasadMDMPH You would think so but no. https://t.co/x2bMN62Ajx

@lifeofmoe93 @VPrasadMDMPH https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@muskrat1973us @VPrasadMDMPH https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@muskrat1973us @VPrasadMDMPH https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@muskrat1973us @VPrasadMDMPH https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@bee_ghoul @VPrasadMDMPH 100% Sero prevalence will never occur because some do not seroconvert "ever". Also RCT https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO Also masking in health care settings. https://t.co/vNHjN2qWWW

@wildtrailflow @VPrasadMDMPH I guess I'm not serious. I have seen numerous RCT's on drugs show that they were safe and effective, and then withdrawn from the market because they were not. On the other hand, this analysis was done by serious scientists. h

@VPrasadMDMPH "it'll be" sounds like Mike Lindell. No they aren't. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO Still hyperbole. "let them eat cake".

@jonatha14828976 @badlefty @WHO @mvankerkhove @DrMikeRyan @gruffdavies @jonatha14828976: Observational studies generally match RCTs well: Cochrane systematic MA of reviews themselves systematically reviewing observational vs RCTs found no significant diff

@RemondAlex4 @arikouts Tu sais que depuis 2 ans et que 90% de ce qu'ils racontaient s'est avéré vrai plutôt que "complotiste", c'est devenu hyper ringard de dire "France Soir. Lol faut arrêter avec les sources débiles " . https://t.co/GkJE1kv8Pw

@Armiansk1 @fourrierbruno @libertlibert11 C'est exactement à partir de ce genre de postulats aussi faux que parfaitement subjectifs que la fausse science commerciale des injections aux potentiels effets 2ndaire tant gravissimes qu'inutiles pour personne sa

@Odieux_Vulgaire @DeBunKerEtoiles @BigMonarque C’est une constatation, les gens vaccinés sont malade et même plus que les non vaccinées, c’est observationnel, et comme le dit cet article, l’observationnel à autant de valeur que le double aveugle https://t.

@DocLucas4 @bibinhafc Sachant que les etudes obs sont aussi valables que les randomisées https://t.co/GkJE1kuAZY

@MR_Mick19 @VoilaLamort @CEMizback @DeBunKerEtoiles la voila https://t.co/GkJE1kv8Pw

@Dug180 @NewstalkZB https://t.co/lwv6KqmSB5 https://t.co/QQuFc6K8gT

@TaxRest @MonicaGandhi9 JaJaJaJa payaso. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@fehsalignac @Alenetopf @revistaoeste Acha que alguém aqui é retardado? Cadê os artigos científicos, referências? Eu posso te mostrar aqui pra você que é retardada: https://t.co/QujE3Pjyzp https://t.co/lV3Bv3aILe Quer que eu continua a te encher de tonelad

@yeahnaa333 @joshinthehouse3 @crabb_vicki @stkirsch The cochrane collaboration before it's was corrupted by UNITAID have shown this pyramid is wrong RCT are not the best kind of studies it's like the observationnal if they are well designed and the RCT ten

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials - Anglemyer, A - 2014 | Cochrane Library https://t.co/YCr1Ep240R

@Akalmondjoy @WalnutBunny @stkirsch These “Trust the science” goofballs complete dismiss the role that observational study plays in medical research. To them, if a double-blind study hasn’t been conducted then it can’t be plausible. https://t.co/AnOAVHLC

@emlitofnote @Incomico @PierreKory Did you know study design has less influence on results than industry funding? https://t.co/s33E214iOZ https://t.co/CKsacOw2ii However, we continue to exclude studies based on design RoB and have no tool to assess funding

RT @levypatrick9: @StatChrisCotton @BachMat10 @Figaro_Live @gkierzek @vincentroux88 A priori, je suis d'accord avec vous, mais que pensez v…

@StatChrisCotton @BachMat10 @Figaro_Live @gkierzek @vincentroux88 A priori, je suis d'accord avec vous, mais que pensez vous de cette revue cochrane? https://t.co/39Jx312HzI https://t.co/4Az9mDK5nV

@Sybarit88065560 @MonicaGandhi9 Their report assumes that RCT is superior to observational. The irony of that is their own paper said that that is not necessarily true. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

and some peer-reviewed articles here: https://t.co/s33E214iOZ https://t.co/Cefp5cuyPR https://t.co/blimLP1pF5 The last one assesses correctly the threat of a dogmatic authoritarianism from EBM in modern medicine, in my opinion. 5/n

@PierreKory 2/ https://t.co/s33E214iOZ "Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies." 2/n

@CyRiL_D1 @etatsdechoc_ Pas d'accord, les biais potentiels sont différents. Au final, le résultat est tout aussi fiable que ce soit observationnel ou RCT : "on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observatio

RT @sudokuvariante: Il s'avère malheureusement que c'est exactement l'inverse, selon des études scientifiques tout à fait sérieuses: https:…

RT @sudokuvariante: Il s'avère malheureusement que c'est exactement l'inverse, selon des études scientifiques tout à fait sérieuses: https:…

RT @sudokuvariante: Il s'avère malheureusement que c'est exactement l'inverse, selon des études scientifiques tout à fait sérieuses: https:…

RT @sudokuvariante: Il s'avère malheureusement que c'est exactement l'inverse, selon des études scientifiques tout à fait sérieuses: https:…

RT @sudokuvariante: Il s'avère malheureusement que c'est exactement l'inverse, selon des études scientifiques tout à fait sérieuses: https:…

RT @sudokuvariante: Il s'avère malheureusement que c'est exactement l'inverse, selon des études scientifiques tout à fait sérieuses: https:…

RT @sudokuvariante: Il s'avère malheureusement que c'est exactement l'inverse, selon des études scientifiques tout à fait sérieuses: https:…

Il s'avère malheureusement que c'est exactement l'inverse, selon des études scientifiques tout à fait sérieuses: https://t.co/s33E213KZr https://t.co/CKsacOvusK 4/n

@OdouThomas @veroniquegenest @jeannotdupeuple @BlemontD @raoult_didier @EricChabriere2 mais c'est un vrais fouineur dis donc !!! Du coup pourquoi vous ne sortez pas mon tweet sur l'institut cochrane qui nous dit qu'il y a très peu de différence entre un ER

@D_Deplanque @HAS_sante @FrcsBraun @acadmed @AcadPharm @hcsp_fr @ordre_medecins @EmmanuelMacron @MathieuMolimard @SFPT_fr @CNPM_fr Nos résultats apportent peu de preuves indiquant des différences significatives au niveau de l'estimation de l'effet entre le

@DrToddLee @zchagla Little evidence of difference in this study. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@rodolpheg @NiusMarco @Acermendax Normalement il ne devrait pas y avoir de différence entre une ERC et une observationnelle, On devrait pouvoir observé, dans le réel, ce qui à été démontré en ERC, mais là !!! On y est pas du tout !!! https://t.co/zRvNwW5Yj

@RemeorLol @Alphanumrique2 @AfpFactuel Ils soulignent également que l’ERC détermine l’efficacité d’un traitement dans des conditions idéales et que l’observationnelle mesure l’efficacité d’une intervention dans des conditions plus réelles. https://t.co/zRv

@vaccinologie @threadreaderapp Que pensez vous de ceci qui compare etudes obs et RCT?https://t.co/39Jx31kirg

@samiahurst Une bonne étude observationnelles est aussi valable qu’une RCT selon cochrane , mais dire ça en 2020 c’était inaudible https://t.co/j6S2kO3Ohh

@Charles0BaBa @HumphreyPT @MonicaGandhi9 As opposed to a false placebo double blinded randomized clinical trail? You can share more of your jokes anytime you like. They are hilarious. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@FOHMaster @boulware_dr "there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs" https://t.co/YQ66KKyktg

@MonicaGandhi9 Not to nitpick. In my profession pharmacy, observational frequently corrects RCT. That is why we have had so many drugs withdrawn from the market after RCT indicated they were safe and effective. https://t.co/YQ66KKySiO

@adamcifu https://t.co/LQP5xE1adU

Healthcare outcomes with observational studies compared to randomized trials https://t.co/JJIPYJHEv9

Alles super, wir brauchen gar keine RCTs: https://t.co/SyNITzdBnE

RT @KarlPfleger: Observational studies generally match RCTs well: Cochrane systematic MA of reviews themselves systematically reviewing obs…

Relatedly on how well observational studies match RCTs on effect size (generally pretty well): https://t.co/vBx82JgF1W

Observational studies generally match RCTs well: Cochrane systematic MA of reviews themselves systematically reviewing observational vs RCTs found no significant diff in effect size: https://t.co/LFVmfTwWer pooled ROR effect f/ RCTs v observational studies

@tofailisgood @wbgrant2 @Dmozaffarian https://t.co/v4YlflrLoN

RT @alexandrosM: Next up, Merino. Scott REALLY stomps his feet to tell us that he REALLY REALLY hates non-RCTs. The truth doesn't care. His…

RT @sival84: The hypothesis RCTs are so much better than observational data has been tested and found wanting. To continue insisting RCT is…

Next up, Merino. Scott REALLY stomps his feet to tell us that he REALLY REALLY hates non-RCTs. The truth doesn't care. His hypothesis has been tested and found to be false. Observational studies are actually about as good as RCTs at finding truth. https://

RT @alexandrosM: "...This is another case of “I’m not going to trust anything that isn’t an RCT”." That's a cult credo. Bayesians should a…

"...This is another case of “I’m not going to trust anything that isn’t an RCT”." That's a cult credo. Bayesians should absorb information however it comes. Discarding data *bad*. We can't demand perfection, and let's face it, we've seen some shitty RCTs.

RT @sival84: @AviBittMD @gilbert_henry @alexandrosM Studies comparing the results provided by RCTs and OCTs have found that both provide th…

RT @sival84: @AviBittMD @gilbert_henry @alexandrosM Studies comparing the results provided by RCTs and OCTs have found that both provide th…

RT @sival84: @AviBittMD @gilbert_henry @alexandrosM Studies comparing the results provided by RCTs and OCTs have found that both provide th…

@leandrotessler @guilhermejd1 @WagnerMenke @mab_sp125 Guilherme, se atente a este estudo também. Observacionais, historicamente, já coincidem com RCTs (nem precisa de PSM, que dá mais precisão), principalmente quando o efeito é maior que 8%. https://t.co

@Leo_Hamachi @mab_sp125 @leandrotessler Toma mais um, Leonardo. Aqui nós temos a esperança que a ciência seja ouvida. https://t.co/vvxuTdxk7Z

@WagnerMenke @mab_sp125 @leandrotessler Você gosta de fator de impacto? Tá bem. Aqui, na Cochrrane, explica que estudos observacionais (nem PSM são), coincidem com os RCTs, principalmente se o resultado for maior que 8%. Ciência, meu caro. https://t.co/v

@Oliviersanstom @RigalMichele @NiusMarco @alainhoupert @noel_sylviane bien évidemment mieux vaut faire fy de la vie réelle. Connaissez vous la différence entre un ERC et une étude observationnelle ? selon cochrane il n'y en a pas. Pouvez vous expliquer pou

RT @BreatheMD: According to this study published in the Cochrane Review, healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs are…

RT @BreatheMD: According to this study published in the Cochrane Review, healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs are…

RT @BreatheMD: According to this study published in the Cochrane Review, healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs are…

RT @BreatheMD: According to this study published in the Cochrane Review, healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs are…

According to this study published in the Cochrane Review, healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs are just as valid as those assessed in randomized trials - Anglemyer, A - 2014 | Cochrane Library https://t.co/rnrFHBhj3Q

“…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.” #justsayin https://

@LCimasoni @matthieugarby @raoult_didier https://t.co/Pct2vMNnBr

RT @CetiCov19: Pour ceux qui doutent qu’une étude observationnelle comme celle des toubibs du 74 n’a pas de valeur face à étude randomisée……

RT @CetiCov19: Pour ceux qui doutent qu’une étude observationnelle comme celle des toubibs du 74 n’a pas de valeur face à étude randomisée……

Poke @JeremyAnso

Pour ceux qui doutent qu’une étude observationnelle comme celle des toubibs du 74 n’a pas de valeur face à étude randomisée…peut être lire ceci pour pleine maitrise.. https://t.co/UnSLVeTFWx

@mackinprof @theproof Hi Stuart, just came across a Cochrane review relevant to this; thought you might be interested! https://t.co/MDadmBISpt. And also this in JAMA https://t.co/x3rdc3Amsq.

RT @RMConservative: From cochrane: "As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant eff…

RT @RMConservative: From cochrane: "As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant eff…

RT @RMConservative: From cochrane: "As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant eff…

RT @RMConservative: From cochrane: "As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant eff…

From cochrane: "As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity,.."http

https://t.co/v4YlflrLoN

RT @Scientista_Data: https://t.co/B9LaL4j8t5 https://t.co/XpvR4PfKOs https://t.co/CLAo6kMg0y https://t.co/Bz1jZHhXzE https://t.co/B9LaL4j8t…

https://t.co/vS8gUkxJia https://t.co/JmvBRaqmPM https://t.co/B4Ld70OLsm Can real-world data replace RCTs? https://t.co/bRZ9BwXSp4 https://t.co/v8zywoohGl https://t.co/RHJ9nGqOAI https://t.co/lj92qzKtkh https://t.co/pF6a8FzFYy https://t.co/6JGL0QyefV http

https://t.co/B9LaL4j8t5 https://t.co/XpvR4PfKOs https://t.co/CLAo6kMg0y https://t.co/Bz1jZHhXzE https://t.co/B9LaL4j8t5 https://t.co/4ixrVlyLI3 https://t.co/lSc3H30eQy https://t.co/9mgdhLHl0g 3/