Thread by @WillStewNeuro

Today an influential but sadly flawed 'consensus' pours water on adverse #BrainHealth risk and #neurodegenerative disease/ #dementia in former contact sport athletes.

Meanwhile ⬇️

https://twitter.com/WillStewNeuro/status/1577621060073070592

"But it's a consensus of experts!"

Nobody can be an expert on everything, not even #CISG

Recognising this, Statement authors commissioned reviews by selected specialist 'expert' authors to review literature*, led by small subgroups of #CISG panel

1/

These sub-groups then fed back outcomes from the review processes, which wider Statement authors voted on, so producing 'consensus' positions.

What does this mean?

It means that for late effects, by example, only 7/31 Statement authors actually reviewed the literature
2/

What about other 24 Statement authors?

Have to assume that as didn't participate in reviews they are self-declared 'non-experts' and opinions then based on report from the 'experts' in room

But wouldn't they abstain from consensus voting in areas not expert in?

Appears not
3/

From voting report in Statement, 29 authors voted on late effects/#CTE content.

At best this means 22 authors were self declared non-experts at the start of the process, but still felt they could vote to influence global athlete #BrainHealth for the next few years.