There is confusion among some @nytimes columnists, (i.e., #BretStephens), journalists, clinicians & others about what we can conclude from the @cochranecollab review on masking. @HealthFeedback has a wonderful primer on the subject. You should read it. 1/ healthfeedback.org/claimreview/mu…
The primer is meant to push back on a specific claim made after @cochranecollab was out: FULL CLAIM: Review “failed to find even a ‘modest effect’ on infection or illness rate”; “the CDC Grossly Exaggerated the Evidence Supporting Mask Mandates”. 2/
As @HealthFeedback says: "Claims that face masks are ineffective at reducing the spread of COVID-19 based on a Cochrane review didn’t take into account the limitations of the review." 3/
"While many users presented this review as the highest-quality evidence, the individual studies it evaluated varied greatly in terms of quality, study design, populations studied, and outcomes observed, which prevented the authors from drawing any definitive conclusions." 4/
.@HealthFeedback continues: "Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard when assessing the effectiveness of an intervention." 5/
"However, this type of study can vary greatly in quality, particularly in complex interventions such as face masks, affecting the reliability of the results." 6/
"In this context, many scientists consider that randomized controlled trials should be seen as a part of broader evidence including other study designs." 7/
"When taking those studies into account, evidence suggests that widespread mask usage can reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, especially when combined with other interventions like frequent handwashing and physical distancing." end/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
