@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:…
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
Healthcare outcomes with observational studies compared to randomized trials https://t.co/JJIPYJHEv9
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
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…
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://
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
@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…
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
@LapiGreg @nicolasberrod On se tutoie? Votre bible ne m'intéresse guère. Je bous ai juste montré un exemple parmi d'autre que votre "golden standard" ne vaut pas mieux que l'observationnel. Même la science le dit. C'est la science d'avant le Covid qui le d
@FungalDoc @boulware_dr "there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs" https://t.co/YQ66KKgJ4G
RT @GainOfDystopia: @fitterhappierAJ @kateneuropsych Seems strange that SSRIs are having reports of positive effects on Covid, multiple der…
@fitterhappierAJ @kateneuropsych Seems strange that SSRIs are having reports of positive effects on Covid, multiple dermatological conditions, and psychiatric symptoms: https://t.co/DZKE3cTL6k
Interesting study that shows live trials such as the ones done on IVM/HCQ are no less predictive than randomized placebo controlled studies. This was publish in 14 so everyone claiming that the studies were BS because they weren’t RPC studies was lying htt
@Abstrac60701412 @EricBillyFR https://t.co/1aTl6mPNls La science n'est pas de la religion
RT @cesargaston: @mab_sp125 @Biakicis "...não existem diferenças significativas entre estudos observacionais (...), principalmente quando a…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
A voz de quem conhece! Leiam!
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @cesargaston: @mab_sp125 @Biakicis "...não existem diferenças significativas entre estudos observacionais (...), principalmente quando a…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
RT @DRobertaLacerda: 2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprov…
2/4 Alô, checadores de fatos Você consultou alguém q afirmou, com todas as letras, q “estudo observacional não comprova eficácia”, não é mesmo? Quer ver seu especialista correr? Mostre p/ ele o estudo de Anglemeyer, publicado na Cochrane. https://t.co/FTim
RT @cesargaston: @mab_sp125 @Biakicis "...não existem diferenças significativas entre estudos observacionais (...), principalmente quando a…
@mab_sp125 @Biakicis "...não existem diferenças significativas entre estudos observacionais (...), principalmente quando a diferença é maior que 8% de eficácia, como é o caso." Andrew Anglemyer, https://t.co/izConee92h Kjell Benson, https://t.co/FW87rbgv
@KordingLab there are several papers that try to make such comparisons, e.g. https://t.co/YKeHVayH1S and https://t.co/1wUxSXAcPg
@vitorborin_ Pega os links. RCTs coincidem com observacionais. Portanto, observacionais comprovam sim, eficácia. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy https://t.co/1KVVXvfLcy
@itsjamesdhull @GidMK There's no convincing you that IVM should have been approved over a year ago. You're fine with getting boosters ad infinitum so let's leave it at that. I will share this however for those who laugh at observational studies https://t.
@SpeakTr51844063 @Matthew_T_Lowe @RandyL520 @gettnhotnhere @PN_1984 @resisterlib A couple links for your viewing pleasure: https://t.co/p03CbB64Vn https://t.co/W2NKRSdwo5 https://t.co/F1fvceVpyr
@SophieColin20 @EChabriere C'est LA question de cette crise. Une forme de croyance en la supériorité absolue des nouveaux traitements sur les molécules anciennes et des essais cliniques randomisés sur les études observationnelles (malgré l'étude de la Coch
RT @tatianaschild: 6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as r…
@dkupiecki As opposed to large randomized studies where they give the patients potentially lethal doses while they're already severely sick? Lol makes a lot of sense. https://t.co/ENyE36s2jy
@AviBittMD @gilbert_henry @alexandrosM Studies comparing the results provided by RCTs and OCTs have found that both provide the same results overall. https://t.co/xeKUDqjXQ7 https://t.co/pu6f30zmm9
@NaimeDr É impressionante como todo especialista consultado esquece do estudo de Anglemeyer quando enche a boca para falar que "estudo observacional" não comprova eficácia. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
@SkillmanDaniel @EricRWeinstein Except well designed observational studies have been proven to be just as effective as RCT. There have been plenty of these carried out for various early treatment drugs. https://t.co/ENyE36s2jy