@clicjf @GJulienC @nsaillant @Vadeboncoeur_Al @EmergencyBlog « Rétrospective "au lieu de" prospective »... attention. Cela fait déjà un bout de temps que l'on s'est débarrassés de cette superstition que les ECR sont nécessairement supérieurs aux études rét
RT @sival84: The hypothesis RCTs are so much better than observational data has been tested and found wanting. To continue insisting RCT is…
RT @sival84: The hypothesis RCTs are so much better than observational data has been tested and found wanting. To continue insisting RCT is…
RT @marc_g_wathelet: Voilà, pour les fanatiques des études contrôlées randomisées à l'exclusion de toutes autres données, la démonstration…
RT @marc_g_wathelet: Voilà, pour les fanatiques des études contrôlées randomisées à l'exclusion de toutes autres données, la démonstration…
Voilà, pour les fanatiques des études contrôlées randomisées à l'exclusion de toutes autres données, la démonstration qu'elles ne font pas mieux que les études observationnelles pour estimer l'efficacité d'un traitement. Non pas qu'ils changeront d'avis, c
RT @sival84: The hypothesis RCTs are so much better than observational data has been tested and found wanting. To continue insisting RCT is…
RT @sival84: The hypothesis RCTs are so much better than observational data has been tested and found wanting. To continue insisting RCT is…
The hypothesis RCTs are so much better than observational data has been tested and found wanting. To continue insisting RCT is magic and observational data can be dismissed is pseudo-science and has more in common with religion than science. https://t.co/
@C_Kavanagh @Reckoning_2020 @Ikwane I parrot nothing. I present facts. Studies found there is nothing magical about RCTs, retrospective observational data produce extremely similar results. Here's one, published by Cochrane: https://t.co/xeKUDqjXQ7
@drjohnm @VPrasadMDMPH No we don't, not anymore. That's FUD. You can fudge RCTs in myriad ways. Observational studies can be just as good (like the ones with #hydroxichloroquine and propensity score analysis and 3000 to 8000 patients). https://t.co/ynlyU
@JonathanRyderMD @GermHunterMD Please argue that doctors shouldn't wear masks in the operating theater. Obs studies can be rock solid. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Anglem
@GermHunterMD Well designed obs. studies = just as good as RCTs Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Anglemyer A1, Horvath HT, Bero L The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
@boulware_dr I submit to you sir: "Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials (Review)" Cochrane Review. Shows observational studies can be just as goos as RCTs. https://t.co/ynlyUcig
@BtcFelipebr @gersonsalvador É simples de entender: infectologista fingindo entender de estatística e epidemiologia. RCT de N=250 é "tão bom" quanto observacional. E observacional pode ser tão bom quanto RCT, mas desavisado não sabe disso. É aquele car
@josegallucci Tire essa noção boba que RCT c/N=250 é "muito melhor". RCT bom = tem gastar 50 milhões de dólares! Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized tria
RT @tatianaschild: @SBSNews @GregHuntMP @TGAgovau @ScottMorrisonMP @CraigKellyMP How did US agencies influence our own? Ultimately it is th…
@SBSNews @GregHuntMP @TGAgovau @ScottMorrisonMP @CraigKellyMP How did US agencies influence our own? Ultimately it is the responsibility of our agencies. We should analyse how the US agencies failed in the process - answers spelled out in this thread ref
@Carletdesiles Tu veux dire celle-ci ? https://t.co/F33DoLe8uK
@francoisdambrin @Xyz_Apologia @xavier_alberti Quand on est dans le dogme du RCT imposé par l'industrie pharmaceutique alors que cela fait des années que plusieurs études ont démontré qu'il n'y a aucune supériorité prédictive des RCT par rapport aux observ
@Vadeboncoeur_Al @raoult_didier Lien de l’étude sur les différences de biais entre RCT et OBS : https://t.co/tsRJ3AKwWO
@boulware_dr "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" https://
@nicknorwitz @MalagaMilly What evidence do you have that's it's more often wrong? https://t.co/lUT4Rke7am
@boulware_dr https://t.co/UnaKNC2w11 "Our results provide little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, inclusion of pharmacological stu
@AviBittMD Interesting read albeit an older Cochrane review https://t.co/XZWDT77gp1
@CerveauMuscle @franceinfoplus @LacombeKarine1 Cochrane 2014 https://t.co/IwQMTcbnR8
@FOHMaster @btysonmd You got the wrong guy. I don't believe that RCT is superior to observational. https://t.co/YQ66KKgJ4G
@Gandalf59624584 @Karl_Peter_Abel @DoomIstKrieg @Citizen4Sci @danfrem17 @BernardJomier @Drmartyufml @olivierveran @LehmannDrC @DgCostagliola Le même Cochrane qui dit que ya pas de différences entre les RCT et les observationnelles? Ah ok Donc c cool on pe
RT @tatianaschild: 6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as r…
RT @slimane_dridi: @VPrasadMDMPH I don't understand this RCT religion. It's scientifically baseless and in reality creates artificial barri…
RT @slimane_dridi: @VPrasadMDMPH I don't understand this RCT religion. It's scientifically baseless and in reality creates artificial barri…
RT @slimane_dridi: @VPrasadMDMPH I don't understand this RCT religion. It's scientifically baseless and in reality creates artificial barri…
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies | Cochrane https://t.co/95muhDF5nh
RT @slimane_dridi: @VPrasadMDMPH I don't understand this RCT religion. It's scientifically baseless and in reality creates artificial barri…
RT @slimane_dridi: @VPrasadMDMPH I don't understand this RCT religion. It's scientifically baseless and in reality creates artificial barri…
RT @slimane_dridi: @VPrasadMDMPH I don't understand this RCT religion. It's scientifically baseless and in reality creates artificial barri…
@VPrasadMDMPH I don't understand this RCT religion. It's scientifically baseless and in reality creates artificial barriers such that only big pharma companies are able to produce "sound" research. See this for the science of rct vs observational studies:
RT @filipe_rafaeli: @Covid19Crusher Yes. Science history tell us that we dont need RCTs. The results are the same. But RCTs are not cheap…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: @Covid19Crusher Yes. Science history tell us that we dont need RCTs. The results are the same. But RCTs are not cheap…
For those that want to engage in analyzing https://t.co/9JoF2XO5xh
RT @filipe_rafaeli: @Covid19Crusher Yes. Science history tell us that we dont need RCTs. The results are the same. But RCTs are not cheap…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: @Covid19Crusher Yes. Science history tell us that we dont need RCTs. The results are the same. But RCTs are not cheap…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: @Covid19Crusher Yes. Science history tell us that we dont need RCTs. The results are the same. But RCTs are not cheap…
@Covid19Crusher Yes. Science history tell us that we dont need RCTs. The results are the same. But RCTs are not cheap and are useful to big pharma as a tool to block cheap medicines. So easy to understand. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
RT @tatianaschild: 6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as r…
RT @tatianaschild: 6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as r…
RT @tatianaschild: 6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as r…
RT @tatianaschild: 6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as r…
6/ Prof Risch: "The science shows that well-conducted non-randomised but controlled trials give... as good evidence as randomised trials. We know this now from reviews of 10,000 studies done by Cochrane Library Commission in England published in 2014" http
RT @yoshkapundrick: @nickmmark Speaking of GIGO. As a pharmacist I can only say that "rigor" in the evaluation of RCT's on drugs has lead t…
RT @yoshkapundrick: @Covid19Crusher @nickmmark Speaking of GIGO. As a pharmacist I can only say that "rigor" in the evaluation of RCT's on…
garbage in, garbage out. Clinical outcomes matter? https://t.co/QL1euHkgjU https://t.co/zNLr6Tzrpg
@Covid19Crusher @nickmmark Speaking of GIGO. As a pharmacist I can only say that "rigor" in the evaluation of RCT's on drugs has lead to deadly results. https://t.co/e7avaA3xVP https://t.co/pKoesrQoA3
@nickmmark Speaking of GIGO. As a pharmacist I can only say that "rigor" in the evaluation of RCT's on drugs has lead to deadly results. https://t.co/YQ66KKyktg https://t.co/e7avaA3xVP
études observationnelles Vs randomisées "il existe très peu de preuves indiquant des différences significatives au niveau de l'estimation de l'effet entre les études observationnelles et les ECR" https://t.co/zxYJM3N1Kb
@OscarGenomics @cvamarosa No soy de los que creen en complots y me han criticado por eso. Los estudios perfectos no existen Oscar y eso lo sabes. Hablando de evidencia, este artículo de puede interesar. Observacional vs RCT. ¿Qué tanto difieren? https:/
RT @_caballero_rojo: @haramali @gerardo_gamba No hay argumentos para descartar los estudios observacionales como evidencia. En todas las re…
@haramali @gerardo_gamba No hay argumentos para descartar los estudios observacionales como evidencia. En todas las revisiones no hay grandes diferencias con los RCT. https://t.co/o5Q6f5q3Ms
@SkepticalMutant @krebiozen @masha_dieSonne @Sowmya43633136 @thenaughtyjuic1 @MarchandHaley @JeanmarcBenoit @TwitterSafety @TwitterSupport Why statistical inference from RCTs is likely to generate false and irreproducible results https://t.co/XpvR4PfKOs Co
@cashdavec @EdoajoEric Because there is a professional disregard against observational studies. And there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs. https://t.co/lDMZZB1y8C
@rsvmike @QtScience @DgCostagliola @AlMagalas @nicolasberrod Observational studies as good as RCT: all I need to know. Farewell clown! https://t.co/8to5AOQlHU
@CarolinaLzari1 @88zecarlos @azevedo_lcp Querida, vamos estudar mais? Vamos de ciência? Não existem diferenças significativas de resultados entre estudos observacionais e o "padrão ouro". Liga lá na Cochrane e diz que o estudo tá errado e bate o telefon
RT @sival84: @findingvinay @gummibear737 Largest studies on the question found that there was no significant difference in the results of R…
@findingvinay @gummibear737 Largest studies on the question found that there was no significant difference in the results of RCTs vs observational studies and no reason to discard the latter. In science, that means the "RCT only" dogma is debunked as unju
@rsvmike @PretresseAlexia @alain_cantat Cadeau, c'est en français. Apprenez. https://t.co/SN8y1RBqfH
@docprimum @DDupagne @delamare41 @T_Fiolet @LeProfessionne9 https://t.co/mAQ0LTPtfs "summary" : While useful in some situations, randomization is not the “gold standard” for medical education research. 🤡
@Tinuzsz @jaap0101 @rubenivangaalen Je moet nu niet gaan lopen... Ik verwijs even naar deze analyse van Cochrane ivm effect size van RCT versus observationele studies. RCT’s zijn zinvol maar hebben beperkingen. observationele studies (zoals deze Iraanse)
@s38lemen @LMucchielli @lemondefr @decodeurs Pour rappel, sur le dogme du RCT ... https://t.co/3QjpkevEtK
@wargonm @Aesdotjs @jacme31 @MARYau_MCU_PH https://t.co/mAQ0LTPtfs 2014. Si 2006 pr vs c'est le passé lointain...l'EBM a base de RCT généralisés ne remonte qu'à 1970. On laissera juger de la pertinence de votre jugement sur ce point crucial.
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
@izkia dejemos que la gente siga muriendo hasta que tengan más evidencia que ningún otra terapia en tiempos de no pandemia. No creo que así de cruel sea la medicina orientada a la evidencia.
@juancarlossaid @CCuadradoN @izkia @TV_DanielS @sebasugarte @martinzilic @Mayafernandeza @frankorestovic @dridelatorre @DrUmbra @doctor911_cl @patriciorosas @RobustosMD @1_sandracortes Hasta cuando van a esperar para utilizar la #ivermectina?
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
RT @AOlavarria: Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad pi…
Aquí @radagabriel pidiendo 3 meses más para estar seguro... segurisisísimo de que a Ivermectina funciona 🤦♂️ De verdad piensan que la IVM va a fallar? https://t.co/EsGSTJ5NJs En otros países ya están hartos de este show y se judicializó el tema: https:/
@_TheAncientOne_ @cov19treatments @tatianaschild @jerry25a @drcraigwax @GeorgeFareed2 @Covid19Crusher @filipe_rafaeli @marybethpf @jpkiekens @richardursomd @naomirwolf Pretending observational studies are producing inferior data iis simply a null argument.
@n6g6c @ScienceMagazine @arretsurimages Inquiétant de sortir de la manche la prétendue faiblesse des études observ. de la part d'un journal sc. Elles mènent à des résultats tout aussi robustes et fiables que les RCT, de nombreuses ref sérieuses l'attesten
@thyagomlp @Covid19Crusher Based on what, please? https://t.co/mSQlajerf0
@MrZ70914564 @KovacsStephane @MagCarco @a_1_0_2__ @xazalbert @KidAlex8 @EChabriere @raoult_didier Ce sont les études que les médecins traitants sont capables de faire pendant qu'ils sauvent des vies. Et c'est connu que les études observationnelles donnent
@ThomasAgoritsas @Dahuuu @GabinJean3 C'est peut-être du au fait qu'il n'est pas scientifiquement établi que les études randomisées apportent de meilleurs résultats que les études observationnelles. https://t.co/TqGepIQCKv