@dnunan79 @LGHemkens @RecoveryDoctor @GuyattGH @AnilMakam For any widespread intervention (screening, treatment): yes. Because the risk of false positives has significant consequences. But for other issues, yes, other criteria for evidence must be established.
The important thing is to set them in advance. For example :
The important thing is to set them in advance. For example :
@dnunan79 @LGHemkens @RecoveryDoctor @GuyattGH @AnilMakam To determine whether a treatment can be harmful, more than just high-quality RCTs are needed...:
Data triangulation...
But criteria are needed to assert that the treatment can be harmful.
Data triangulation...
But criteria are needed to assert that the treatment can be harmful.
@dnunan79 @LGHemkens @RecoveryDoctor @GuyattGH @AnilMakam Each question has answers provided by different methods.
The important thing is to define in advance what transforms data into evidence.
The important thing is to define in advance what transforms data into evidence.
@dnunan79 @LGHemkens @RecoveryDoctor @GuyattGH @AnilMakam Finally, the philosophical question behind this is: is it the method or the situation that transforms a study result into evidence (useful for decision-making)?
GRADE, through its inductive method (rather than hypothetical-deductive), has chosen the second option.
I assert that
GRADE, through its inductive method (rather than hypothetical-deductive), has chosen the second option.
I assert that
@dnunan79 @LGHemkens @RecoveryDoctor @GuyattGH @AnilMakam I assert that only the method should determine what constitutes evidence. ...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
