Tweets wherein a @cochranecollab masking review author misrepresents the Yale Bangladeshi masking study & data as opaque, then the Yale first author points out the raw data have been publicly posted the whole time, & the Cochrane review team never saw it nor emailed them once.🧵 
The conversation started like this. @GidMK points out the three COVID-era masking studies included in the review showed clear and consistent benefit from masking. @paulglasziou ADMITS there was an effect from masking in COVID-era studies. Then wrongly frames Yale study as opaque.
People raise to Paul that the data are public. @KelseyTuoc points out the Cochrane authors have repeatedly stated there are many unanswered questions about the Yale study. Well, it appears that is because they don't know how to use Google + never actually asked the questions.
@Jabaluck also points out in the previous screenshot that we know that stated mask-wearing overstates actual mask-wearing, and this is a fatal problem with the Cochrane review's method of aggregating studies without accounting for this.
@rglenner asks for a retraction of Paul's harmful comments, as any good academic should. Speaking of retractions, @cochranecollab are you preparing any public statements yet? @RetractionWatch
The point is the Cochrane review improperly treated one of the 3 most important studies about COVID and masking - a study from 2020+ that actually involved COVID & not pre-pandemic influenza etc. The review is unscientific as are unjustified misinterpretations of its conclusions.
Update: as linked in this thread, the training guide for how to do Cochrane reviews states that reviewers should reach out directly to authors of the studies to answer necessary questions and obtain any missing data. @mushfiq_econ @Jabaluck @KelseyTuoc
https://twitter.com/BlakeMMurdoch/status/1629702831279337472?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
