1/10 Apologies for coming late to the party but I wanted to add my comments on the systematic review on computerised decision support recently published in the BMJ - bmj.com/content/370/bm…@KwanJanice@kgshojania@UrmimalaSarkar@NoahIvers@Robbie_Foy
2/10 Firstly this is an excellent review that was brilliantly led by @KwanJanice and @kgshojania. I have no concerns about how it was conducted or its findings (DOI – I am a proud co-author)
2. Require evidence syntheses to justify new (human and animal) research projects!
May 20, 2019 • 10 tweets • 6 min read
1. Agree @lucadf but we have much knowledge about how to change behaviour and many tools that we should use. Too often we reinvent 'wonky wheels' in healthcare rather than learning from other disciplines. @TOH_CIR@JPresseau@NoahIvers@doug_manuel
1. A research enterprise serving the needs of its jurisdiction needs both open and strategic competitions (especially for applied health). See UK NIHR as shining example of strategic funding program generating excellent science.
2. Rationale for strategic funding is fundamentally about generating knowledge that addresses key jurisdictional priorities. Rationale for Foundation scheme was PI and funder convenience - not the same at all.
Sep 21, 2018 • 21 tweets • 5 min read
0. Why should individuals (in general) trust Cochrane reviews? @JuanGrvas tweeted 'I used to have blind faith in the Cochrane Library reviews until they kicked Peter Gotzche out. My response. (Longish thread - apologies). Bottom line - trust the quality of the reviews!
1. So OK I do not read Spanish and so my response is to the English language cartoon. IMHO the issue relating to Peter Gotzche should not undermine faith in Cochrane reviews (with one proviso see #18).
