@PauloLotufo Bobagem. Aqui está o artigo científico, consolidado, na Cochrane, que explica que o autor do meme aí sabe pouco de ciência. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
RT @filipe_rafaeli: No mundo do Leo Costa, estudos observacionais não comprovam eficácia. Leo Costa nega este estudo na Cochrane. Leo Cos…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: No mundo do Leo Costa, estudos observacionais não comprovam eficácia. Leo Costa nega este estudo na Cochrane. Leo Cos…
No mundo do Leo Costa, estudos observacionais não comprovam eficácia. Leo Costa nega este estudo na Cochrane. Leo Costa não sabe nada sobre ciência. É um palpiteiro. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
@ilyakayli They're all observational studies I believe, which are totally fine imo. I learned that Cochrane did a meta-review of 10k trials and found observational studies to be just as predictive as RCTs. https://t.co/5hugWIerwi
@fabio_taccone @science_md @caru_fred Cochrane => https://t.co/vM3yQ015MO "there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs" Plupart des médicaments utilisés = pas sur base de RCTs. Obsession a
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
@AtomsksSanakan ‘Dishonest abuse’. Not according to the Cochrane Library… You’ll never understand in your echo chamber inside an ivory tower of metholodogy. So, I am not wasting my energy on you anymore #bye https://t.co/or6aLa9LAl
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
@fabio_taccone @dimlabim @CongasMaracas Eh oui, on comprend bien que ceux qui peuvent financer un RCT ne le feront jamais pour une vitamine. Dommage pour un fanatique des RCTs que Cochrane ait conclu pas de différence significative entre études observatio
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
@anandcpatelmdms @rfloh @GidMK Perhaps a meta analysis is not what you actually want. https://t.co/YQ66KKgJ4G https://t.co/oBynTA75AZ
Peu d’évidence démontrant une différence significative entre études observationnelles et essais randomisés. https://t.co/a7EFR9OsWm
Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials https://t.co/TijsXhjxOI
@kenlipartito @K_Sheldrick Actually there is no difference between observational and RCT, that is if you just look at the science. https://t.co/YQ66KKgJ4G
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
Je m’étais fait la même réflexion dans le cadre de ma réécriture de la logique fondamentale (ici observation=/=expérimentation), marrant de voir sa conclusion validée par la meilleure société scientifique du monde surpassant de loin toute autre existante.
It’s worth mentioning that since Anglemyer (and before), virtually ALL other meta-analyses addressing this question reached similar conclusions. And they were not as polite against the consensus in their conclusions, let’s say! The most important ones: ht
https://t.co/GefqWoHdSk First, Anglemyer & al may well be the closest to a plot twist as you can get in epistemology. This is a meta-analysis of meta-analyses. To be more precise, this paper analyzed 1583 meta-analyses. Yep, you read this correctly!
@antipopehat @MrDarcy1815 @AlectheLad @K_Sheldrick @travis_view yes, but observational trials provide evidence too. A Cochrane systematic review found that the conclusions of large observational trials are unlikely to be much different from RCT’s https://t
@EduEngineer @EdoajoEric Eric, please: In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results (link: https://t.co/gPDlxOxCdW) In 2021, https://t.co/aydulSfsvp also found that RCTs and non-RCTs on Iverm
@TP_UKMingeLane @K_Sheldrick @boulware_dr Evidence indicates otherwise. Again: https://t.co/YQ66KKgJ4G https://t.co/e7avazLWxf
@5_utr @stephensenn @holly7holly @f2harrell @gary_lyman @PavlosMsaouel @NicoleKuderer @HarvardBiostats @UWBiostat @drjgauthier @orpanag @ADesaiMD @StatMatt9 Some others (of many) of possible interest to you, @MFGensheimer etc: https://t.co/stnaLZKiOP https
@Rastto @france_soir @Daniell18647615 Recovery : surdosage Hycovid et discovery : sous dosage En fait ce que vous affirmez est faux, une bonne étude observationnelles donnera les mêmes résultats qu'une bonne étude RCT Ceci est démontré par la Cochrane h
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
@JeremyAnso @SArchipoff Lorsque l'on croit que seules les RCT sont dignes d'intérêt on est déjà dans un biais et encore plus si l'on ne s'intéresse aux conditions d'exécution des études par exemple Boulware/Skipper ou Mitjà https://t.co/1aTl6mPNls
RT @tatianaschild: 6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as r…
@plmrtn @vitalbullet101 @arikouts @PanDanTag @raoult_didier Et il est bien trop simpliste, voire orienté (en ce qui concerne Ari Kouts), de conclure en une méthodologie défaillante ou malveillante sur cette étude. Des travaux de méthodologistes le démontr
@Gabrielelm22 @Ben_Hur_Lopes @josenalencar Aleatório? É o artigo científico definitivo que explica que estudos observacionais coincidem de resultado com os estudos randomizados. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
@V_Gasparini @josenalencar "there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs" https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
@josenalencar Aqui, curioso para aprender sobre ciência. https://t.co/7KrPwNwDrN
@josenalencar Caro, tenho uma pergunta. Como este artigo aqui, que afirma que não existem diferenças significativas entre RCTs e observacionais, portanto, explicando que observacional determina eficácia, se encaixa no seu fio? Fale de ciência. https://t.
RT @GuerreiroTrico8: @Pbyohas @BiaR68859379 @Dr_Francisco_ @UOL "on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate diffe…
@Pbyohas @BiaR68859379 @Dr_Francisco_ @UOL "on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs" https://t.co/QJeGCXfLvV
@GidMK @DgCostagliola « on average, 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 in
@Suisse202112 @GabinJean3 Le fait que les études randomisées (ou tests aléatoires) aient un plus haut de preuve que les études observationnelles n’a d’ailleurs pas été démontré, bien que ça soit répété comme une vérité quasi-divine. https://t.co/Pct2vMNn
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
@megikaya 素晴らしいまとめありがとうございます。現状ではRCTが必須という意見に賛成です。一方、こういうレビューの結果についてはどう思われますか。個人的には平均で違いが検出できなくてもプロットのHeterogeneityは大きいし、という感想ですが。 https://t.co/JQGtZ3Mbo3
@GeneralOusenOff @boutaour @raoult_didier C'est une fumisterie de BigPharma https://t.co/Pe25m95AIH
@doc_toctoc @boutaour @CorinneReverbel @raoult_didier Je vous conseille la lecture de l'article du Cochrane pour comprendre le peu de différence entre les 2 types d'étude https://t.co/Pe25m95AIH
@rajiv_ishwar @PierreKory @SAHPRA1 @HealthZA @CDCgov @US_FDA You gladden my heart highlighting Section 6. Pierre Kory bangs on about all the time. For balance, Masic and Misovic et al 2008 paper should be read with this one: https://t.co/qEXTurQLrd Its m
@SebMarinMD @jasonkeays @Antagoniste_net @sussemani D’ailleurs, sur les nuances de l’EBM, quelques suggestions: https://t.co/XmlwXHK8re
@DEFAKATOR_Off @dlouapre @DEFAKATOR_Off 2ème essai : https://t.co/jeO1kXuA0K
@DEFAKATOR_Off @dlouapre On m'avait passé cet article de la Librairie Cochrane qui tends à les mettre plutôt sur un pied d'égalité. Tu en penses quoi ? https://t.co/8Kb749OIg9
@PierreKory @NIH The NIH can't give IVM any level of FOR recommendation because the 31 RCTs and the 32 observational studies reached virtually identical results and that's not enough to recommend FOR use. Wait, what? https://t.co/wvpaxdICK8
@chrismartenson The NIH can't give IVM any level of FOR recommendation because the 31 RCTs and the 32 observational studies reached virtually identical results and that's not enough to recommend FOR use. Wait, what? https://t.co/wvpaxdICK8
@Covid19Critical Totality of evidence https://t.co/ASAI50hkgK
@DEFAKATOR_Off @epenser @dlouapre je pose ça partout, n'oublions pas de regarder ce que ça donne dans la vie réelle https://t.co/sK0yCvnvL9
Et pour relativiser : https://t.co/T2IcsJFdEL
@T_Fiolet @dlouapre Très intéressant. J'avais une réponse beaucoup plus simpliste: "dans la vraie vie ça pose pas tellement de soucis": https://t.co/sK0yCvnvL9
RT @VerteLimonade: @dlouapre Merci pour cette très chouette démo! Sur l'avantage des RCT vs études observationnelles, y a notamment une ét…
@dlouapre J'ai commenté sur ton blog. en version courte. Est ce qu'en condition réelles ça semble oser problème? En fait pas trop: https://t.co/sK0yCvnvL9 poke : @Nibor_Tolum
@dlouapre Merci pour cette très chouette démo! Sur l'avantage des RCT vs études observationnelles, y a notamment une étude Cochrane qui a tenté de le montrer, les conclusions ne vont pas dans ce sens... Peut-être faut-il plus chercher du côté du design d
In 2014 a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs & non-RCTs get virtually identical results: https://t.co/NP760MYReH In 2021, https://t.co/S9SXGwoZ9W also found that RCTs & non-RCTs on Ivermectin vs C19 get virtually identical results
RT @masimaux: RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results…
RCTs vs non-RCTs In 2014, a meta-analysis of 1583 meta-analyses found that RCTs and non-RCTs get virtually identical results (link: https://t.co/gPDlxOxCdW) In 2021, https://t.co/aydulSfsvp also found that RCTs and non-RCTs on Ivermectin vs C19 get virtu
Fui atrás das fontes e fiquei preocupado por se tratar de metanalises e a plataforma Cochrane… https://t.co/RXd7sLUzxA
@boulware_dr @Covid19Crusher Let me reiterate. 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/9GOPDBcQEk Read auth
@0xKruzr @Calamitus888 @timjclevenger @fidelityalt @hyperplanes @quantian1 ... there's no $ in ivermectin so drug companies aren't going to spend money for RCT when they can't recoup that money because it's patent-expired. But read this: https://t.co/9ZE
@CrispyCX @RGregoryClark @lunruj @boulware_dr @loofymectin 82% of IDSA recommendations have no RCT. RCT is not necessarily superior. "there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs" https://t.co
@strom_m @MaryKostakidis @liammannix @CraigKellyMP @AAPSonline @Covid19Critical @PierreKory @Drs4CovidEthics @btysonmd @GeorgeFareed2 @drcraigwax @richardursomd @AsiaPacToday Speaking of Cochrane review I think Prof Harvey Risch et al know what they're tal
RT @VincentDuguay_: @alexandrosM Love the thread! Several things here that I’ll take into account, especially how other scientific discipli…
RT @VincentDuguay_: @alexandrosM Love the thread! Several things here that I’ll take into account, especially how other scientific discipli…
@alexandrosM Love the thread! Several things here that I’ll take into account, especially how other scientific disciplines classify & interpret evidence. To dive more on the medical side of this debate, here are some interesting studies: https://t.co/
@Vadeboncoeur_Al Exclusion des études quasi-expérimentales, encore... Eh misère! En espérant que les grands RCT en route viennent enrichir ces méta-analyses, au moins! Et que celle d’Oxford sera exclue, vue son protocole. https://t.co/XmlwXHK8re
@Penseursauvage @LudovicFalandry @raoult_didier Sciences et avenir dit à peu près n'importe quoi sur les études parues sans les analyser Les RCT ne sont pas plus fiables que des études observationnelles notamment celles retenue dans les 24 analyses dont Re
@LerouxArthur10 L’argument favori de celui qui cherche à déstabiliser l’étude de Raoult est qu’il ne mène pas des ERC… voyons ce que l’institut Cochrane en pense… https://t.co/zRvNwWnzIz
RT @VincentDuguay_: @obgyn_pt @LimitingThe Here are some suggestions to reflect on the hierarchy of evidence, and the need for reform: htt…
@obgyn_pt @LimitingThe Here are some suggestions to reflect on the hierarchy of evidence, and the need for reform: https://t.co/GefqWopD0M https://t.co/qUs5WKXLAY https://t.co/hq1NmwoyVs https://t.co/WcByldYFHg
RT @reasonoverfear: Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies https://t.co/WRS2KrNKrz At last, c…
@DrADKline @fscotto @f_philippot Enfin, étrangement l'ERC, n'est devenue légion que depuis le covid, car en finalité, les 2 types d’études donnait souvent le même résultat, enfin c'est ce qui est dit sur le site de cochrane. Simplement, l'ERC est bien plus
@borcasaz @AlexSamTG @GornyPhilippe @ordre_medecins Bon et bien, c'est une importante chose qu'il faut savoir : il faut lire les études avant d'en faire la promotion et de s'approprier les résultats. C'est quand même mieux pour être crédible Voilà le lien
@gorda_stalker @seleno_glauber @RaskinSalmo @leandrotessler Segue o artigo completo pra vc ver https://t.co/1h1cpE6uY0
@febb2000 @seleno_glauber @RaskinSalmo @leandrotessler Tá bom ou querem mais???? Kkkkkk Que piada Os caras não conhecem 🤦 https://t.co/39tX9YqXzA
@GidMK RCTs are better? A claim without *EVIDENCE*. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. https://t.co/ynlyUcigXB Read this (Cochrane). Anglemyer A1, Horvath HT, Bero L DOI: 10.1
@schrod_erwin @OBK79 @amelie_for_you @DamienBarraud @VeroniqueRadier @lobs 1/2 L'EBM doit tenir compte de toutes les données, pas seulement des RCTs : doxa de l'industrie, ce qui leur convient vu que seul eux peuvent faire les grands RCTs. Vous ignorez les
RT @tatianaschild: 6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as r…
RT @reasonoverfear: Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies https://t.co/WRS2KrNKrz At last, c…
@noorchashm Dr Hooman, wrt to your responses on Covid treatments, RCTs are not always required. Observational studies can also be very credible.
RT @reasonoverfear: Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies https://t.co/WRS2KrNKrz At last, c…
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies https://t.co/WRS2KrNKrz At last, common sense ends the myth of the restrictive RCT. It’s nice to remember, Penicillin was discovered by observation, no randomised trial wa
Ce serait une bonne lecture pour @INESSS_Qc!
@ChihuahuaOly @off_h3 @DIVIZIO1 Donc vous croyez en un dogme, je comprends mieux le cherry picking dans ce cas. https://t.co/Pct2vMNnBr