@josenalencar Gostei muito deste fio, Alencar. Reduz o fetiche com o RCT e aumenta o respeito por estudos observacionais, mais baratos. Sugiro uma sequencia com este artigo. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
@jasonptodd @AbdenurFlavio @TaschnerNatalia @carlosom71 Caro, Ele é escritor de ficção científica. Isso é fato. Não é ofensa. E ele não entende de estatística e não entendeu a meta-análise. Eu sou só um cara que entendeu. E acho que nem precisaria espera
@Lacet @dondacamara @josenalencar São RCTs underpowered publicados na NEJM entre outros lugares. Vai estudar, meninão. E outra coisa. Nunca foi necessário, na história da ciência, precisar de RCT. Sai do twitter e vai estudar! https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
@smh C-Virus, Did we have the cure all along Hmm?: WB US SENATE HEARINGS INTO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE https://t.co/FoxoHpXi4f Anthony Albanese Shadow Health Minister Chris Bowen Bags out the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment C
C-Virus, Did we have the cure all along Hmm?: WB US SENATE HEARINGS INTO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE https://t.co/FoxoHpXi4f Anthony Albanese Shadow Health Minister Chris Bowen Bags out the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment C-Vi
@AndersonBrito_ Deve aumentar também se tiver um laboratório por trás com interesses comerciais posteriores, certo? Tanto no financiamento de um RCT, que é uma fortuna, como na publicação de grife, certo? Mas mesmo assim, não é superior ao barato observ
@leandrotessler Eu sei. Você é um devoto da igreja fundamentalista do randomizado, duplo cego. Aí quando temos uma meta-análise incontestável, você nega. Mas mesmo os observacionais são o suficiente. Você que estudou pouco. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
@YiyoPalmes Este estudio resume las revisiones que comparan ECA con estudios observacionales y encontró poca evidencia de diferencias significativas en las estimaciones del efecto. https://t.co/pYK57q9qQb
@RayTruant @ThierryKlein16 @detourdumonde @TheSkepticMag More, and more. https://t.co/DmnbJtQxof
@detourdumonde @ReturnsJourney @TheSkepticMag It seems that we have here a devotee of the fundamentalist church of the double blind randomized. You may never have studied that. https://t.co/IfbfRwyzsy
@NicolodeGroot @MAiJiNTHEARTIST We know historically that they do not. https://t.co/0CmhMdWKsP https://t.co/3oG7lI0EbF https://t.co/EYVAUU11w1 https://t.co/gRT98oQlGS
@guillermogp18 Ha sido culpa nuestra y de los caracteres limitados de Twitter el no haber especificado que esta afirmación iba dirigida solo a la esfera de la “research evidence”, no obstante, ya en contexto, nos parece cuerda. Este estudio, por ejemplo, n
@VisaHonkanen @KariTikkinen Aiheesta on myös Cochrane-katsaus, jossa Concato mukana. https://t.co/iHjOOKO98b Tuo päätelmä toki tukee väitettäsi. Mutta pitää muistaa "absence of evidence..". Ja toisaalta mietin ovat nämä summamuuttujat vain kohinaa?
@CorinneReverbel @FLAHAULT Egalement ça https://t.co/FSuuSV9CUf
RT @Martin_Ploederl: @johndrummond33 @sandysteingard @Altostrata Usually, results from RCTs and observational studies do come to comparable…
@johndrummond33 @sandysteingard @Altostrata Usually, results from RCTs and observational studies do come to comparable conclusions. The opposing results for antipsychotics are puzzling/disturbing. https://t.co/3rd8SlAP69 https://t.co/MsgAYFRRYh
@JrmeSari1 @DIVIZIO1 Et cherchez bien sur les études randomisées qu’on prend pour le saint-graal, c’est pas l’avis de bon nombre de scientifiques et de cochrane non plus, pas de significativité qu’elles soient meilleures https://t.co/21Ss300p9r
@_MiguelHernan "We need additional randomized trials to obtain a more precise estimate of the effect of #hydroxychloroquine, overall and in subgroups." Why? https://t.co/YQ66KKgJ4G
@Julbert86 @francoisedegois @jdflaysakier Pas d'avis en science ? Pourtant il y a bien souvent un chapitre "Discussion" dans les études... Et Cochrane donne son "avis" après avoir étudié la chose https://t.co/wkDxcl1g62 Voici des arguments sur les RCT HCQ
Attention ça parle de Cochrane en disant encore n'importe quoi sur l'absence de différence de valeur entre études observationnelles et essais cliniques. Bon là pardon mais Brandolini fait coucou. Alors voici juste le lien. https://t.co/mmhipCWmPb #Didier
@White_ganon @JJWINAZZ @baptiste_verger @Juni8T « 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 » https://t.co/MQJT940O6p
@Larhumato Cochrane c'est aussi ceux qui disent qu'il y a très peu de preuves significatives qu'une ECR (RCT) serait meilleure qu'une observationnelle. Alors si l'on utilise leur méthodo il faut savoir reconnaitre ce qu'ils disent sur des sujets liés https
@Tsarorius @T_Fiolet @pouite @lePlaymobil28 @RomainMad Ca semble assez clair pourtant : "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
@T_Fiolet Vous faites semble-t-il l'erreur de sur-évaluer l'intérêt d'une RCT par rapport aux observationnelles, voici ce que Cochrane en concluait : pas de preuve significative que l'une soit meilleure que l'autre https://t.co/mMRpKsabJO
Source : https://t.co/mMRpKsrN8o
@AntsInOK @realDonaldTrump You do a randomized trial if it's a new treatment. Hydroxychloroquine has been used for years. Therefore there's no reason an observational study can't be just as effective. In fact, this study says most often both types are vali
@MantheyJakob PS: Hier noch eine Studie, die jene Offenheit gegenüber verschiedenen Studientypen unterstützt. https://t.co/QMIlAV6hRZ
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
後で確認するけど、合わせにいってるか、出版バイアスかも。確認するけど。
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
RT @yohei_econ: Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。…
Cochrane Reviewによる、健康分野を対象とした観察研究とRCTの結果の比較。観察研究とRCTでは推定値に有意な差はないという結論。 このあたりの感覚の違いが、医療系と社会科学系の因果推論研究者のスタンスの違いにつながっている気がする。 https://t.co/ohNi5KlzDo
コクランレビュー「ランダム化比較試験と観察研究の効果推定値の比較」の日本語訳が公開されました。 https://t.co/6gwsY6OUFp
Comparer les estimations d'effets issues d'essais contrôlés randomisés et d'études observationnelles https://t.co/mUcSrPWjqV
@mimmymum That and observational studies can in practice produce results just as accurate and reliable as RCTs. See: https://t.co/tBeELHIobr, https://t.co/uH0Y2UaLZM.
@DrLimeback Cochrane doesn’t agree with you. https://t.co/C8e6YVfq7u Our results provide little evidence for sig effect estimate diff between obs studies & RCTs,regardless of specific obs study design,heterogeneity, inclusion of pharmacological studi
@Jabaluck @autoregress @PHuenermund @EpiEllie @causalinf @EpiDancer When is fulfilling the back door criterion plausible? Anglemyer https://t.co/1bpByGE8oF reviews reviews contrasting RCTs to BCD/observational, but caveat many compare ITT from RCTs to the
@SMhuirich @bigfatsurprise @MonyaMyms @garytaubes I‘d like to add that for health interventions the outcome of well-conducted observational studies does not significantly differ from RCT results. See this Cochrane review: https://t.co/qy5wmwkN8N
@RyanKandrack @haroldpollack @donaldhtaylorjr @aaronecarroll @amitabhchandra2 @JAMA_current Strangely the medical studies I’ve seen suggest more concordance between RCTs and observational methods. I.e. https://t.co/KDm5RnxWSe
Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. - PubMed - NCBI https://t.co/Q4GdOBQZh9
@bipolaretaeus78 @DrTerryLynch You can also consider observational studies. Although many falsely believe that they are systematically biased, research has shown that their outcome in healthcare interventions does not differ from randomized controlled tria
@psychunseen Also one last comment on my part: results of observational studies and RCT are quite consistent in fact. So there clearly is a place for observational studies https://t.co/cM5lMrwHdr and here: https://t.co/cuZLxGxZ5v
RT @chadcookpt: Observational design? Careful there. https://t.co/9kgTbrfyva https://t.co/Nj2wIoRMb4 https://t.co/jPcWlAOciN https://t.co/F…
RT @chadcookpt: Observational design? Careful there. https://t.co/9kgTbrfyva https://t.co/Nj2wIoRMb4 https://t.co/jPcWlAOciN https://t.co/F…
RT @chadcookpt: Observational design? Careful there. https://t.co/9kgTbrfyva https://t.co/Nj2wIoRMb4 https://t.co/jPcWlAOciN https://t.co/F…
@CGMMaher The Cochrane paper is interesting. Same result from SRs of RCTs and SRs of Obvs studies. https://t.co/HtOHNINeSs
RT @chadcookpt: Observational design? Careful there. https://t.co/9kgTbrfyva https://t.co/Nj2wIoRMb4 https://t.co/jPcWlAOciN https://t.co/F…
Those views are not the dominant ones in biostats & clin epi world. For their question (examine impact of PT receipt & timing on healthcare use & costs) I cannot see observational designs replacing RCTs anytime soon. https://t.co/iLJbyUslO6
RT @chadcookpt: Observational design? Careful there. https://t.co/9kgTbrfyva https://t.co/Nj2wIoRMb4 https://t.co/jPcWlAOciN https://t.co/F…
Observational design? Careful there. https://t.co/9kgTbrfyva https://t.co/Nj2wIoRMb4 https://t.co/jPcWlAOciN https://t.co/FbLVFG1kik https://t.co/HM3ieX5unx
@DrLimeback @SWAFM_ @nyscof @mattindctweets @AFS_Fluoride @drjohnnyjohnson @KidsHealth @healthychildren The COHG states that RCT’s are not feasible with CWF. They even have published on the results of RCT and Observational studies showing essentially the s
>Det finns ingen randomiserad klinisk studie (RCT) rött kött-cancer , enbart observationsstudier, och i art låter det nästan som att vi därför inte vet nånting. RCT är dock inte alltid såå överlägset obs studier som ofta hävdas: > https://t.co/3OJt8
MT @SysReviews Resultados sanitarios evaluados comparando diseños observacionales vs ECAs http://t.co/mbEbn2PbFB
MT @SysReviews Healthcare outcomes assessed w/ #observationalstudy designs compared w/ those assessed in RCTs http://t.co/yxpFV37z4h
@OanhKieuNguyen: How RCTs & observat'l studies are often alike http://t.co/yTSRBSjA0B @CochraneLibrary Review http://t.co/3vqFAM57vP
MT @SysReviews Healthcare outcomes assessed w/ #observationalstudy designs compared w/ those assessed in RCTs http://t.co/yxpFV37z4h
Healthcare outcomes assessed with #observationalstudy designs compared with those assessed in #randomizedtrials http://t.co/vLYKgjaKhJ
Healthcare outcomes assessed with #observationalstudy designs compared with those assessed in #randomizedtrials http://t.co/vLYKgjaKhJ
RCTs and observational studies are more often alike than not: http://t.co/sjQd0yxihL @CochraneLibrary Review: http://t.co/dpwlkeYnSE
Comparing effect ests of RCTs and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/r22zOoc13v Uh-oh RT @medskep HT @trished
http://t.co/690K2UPHgO Excellent article addressing longitudinal studies Vs Randomised controlled trials.
Observational data ≠ RCTs per @JAMA_current viewpt http://t.co/SZI7sXFuHN But this @CochraneLibrary rev says diff http://t.co/o041Xo0Rc3
Cochrane review on why effect size estimates differ in RCTs and observational studies: not study design http://t.co/rQhCsbVYJ1 via @medskep
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies http://t.co/sc2qR3MZ7m via @sharethis Interesting!
MT “@medskep: effect ests of RCTs v observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/cnqQo7WrX9 Uh-oh” More http://t.co/vSYv55tkR6
MT “@medskep: effect ests of RCTs v observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/cnqQo7WrX9 Uh-oh” More http://t.co/vSYv55tkR6
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies http://t.co/pdBjCq2jws - via @vaughanbell
Cochrane review on why effect size estimates differ in RCTs and observational studies: not study design http://t.co/rQhCsbVYJ1 via @medskep
Cochrane review on why effect size estimates differ in RCTs and observational studies: not study design http://t.co/rQhCsbVYJ1 via @medskep
MT “@medskep: effect ests of RCTs v observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/cnqQo7WrX9 Uh-oh” More http://t.co/vSYv55tkR6
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies http://t.co/sc2qR3MZ7m via @sharethis Interesting!
"@trished: MT “@medskep: effect ests of RCTs v observational studies http://t.co/DHhcU9ynTb Uh-oh” More http://t.co/M88k05YrL5"
MT “@medskep: effect ests of RCTs v observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/cnqQo7WrX9 Uh-oh” More http://t.co/vSYv55tkR6
Comparing effect ests of RCTs and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Comparing effect ests of RCTs and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Uh oh indeed. Do RCTs and observational studies really produce different results? http://t.co/yv9KKslI6Z
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Comparing effect estimates of randomized controlled trials and observational studies | Cochrane Summaries http://t.co/LKIh07fYFY Uh-oh
Little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and #RCTs: http://t.co/hWDYkWAiYL @CochraneLibrary