Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 25 at 22:19 history edited jdunlop CC BY-SA 4.0
/s/affect/effect
Jun 21, 2012 at 22:58 comment added Tjaart Aren't the Cochrane reviews supposed to exlude methodologically flawed studies?
Jun 20, 2012 at 13:10 comment added Oddthinking @Russell: The example you gave (Paul, 2007) was one of only two that made it through the inclusion criteria for the first (acute cough) study. So, no, they didn't skip or exclude that one. Now that the links are fixed, have a look at their method and see if you still think it is deliberately biased.
Jun 20, 2012 at 13:02 comment added Oddthinking @Russell: First things first: I have updated the broken links.
Jun 20, 2012 at 13:01 history edited Oddthinking CC BY-SA 3.0
Updated broken links
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:21 comment added Russell Steen Cochrane has skipped and excluded better research papers from their "review" than the ones they cite, such as archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=571638. There have been several studies of hundreds of kids at a time and instead they cite a single study with a woefully insufficient sample size. I have to conclude that they found what they wanted to find, by design. That being said, the links above are dead so I can't do a more thorough assessment.
Sep 8, 2011 at 21:04 vote accept hairboat
Sep 4, 2011 at 1:12 history answered Oddthinking CC BY-SA 3.0