@yangbd.bsky.social
Systematic review methods. Comparative test evaluation. Sources of bias in comparative accuracy studies. Assist prof @amsterdamumc.bsky.social
Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration
A call to action for universities, academies, science organizations and funders to unite and join this effort.
Bernhard Sabel and Dan Larhammar
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
@bmj.com Please look at PubPeer comments on an article you published last week. pubpeer.com/publications...
I think your research integrity dept shld act swiftly on this one, given clinical significance.
I'm aware of even more evidence of problems so let me know if this is not sufficient.
Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials (TACIT), included in systematic reviews, is now available!
Developed by experts led by Lundh & Hróbjartsson at Cochrane Denmark.
Try the unpublished tool: osf.io/5fzv3/.
Learn more at www.tacit.one and share feedback with @alundh.bsky.social!
Love these studies on quality/RoB tools. ROBIS focuses specifically on risk of bias, but wonder if that is more useful than the broader concept of 'methodological quality', when it comes to syst reviews.
15.07.2025 08:41 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0While *ideal* impact factor is well known to be a bad proxy of article quality, it is less well known that *actual* impact factor is negotiated and gamed by journals. You think Nature earned that impact factor? You think that's air you're breathing? (see e.g. journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...)
19.06.2025 11:35 — 👍 65 🔁 23 💬 1 📌 3![Statisticians are often ignored, don't ignore this poster
Adrian Barnett¹, Nicole White¹, Taya A Collyer2
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Peninsula Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne
PROBLEM: Waste in research
Much health and medical research is wasted due to inappropriate study design or analysis
Waste could be reduced using expert review from a qualified statistician
Ethical review is an ideal stage to get expert input
Recently updated Declaration of Helsinki: "research must have a scientifically sound and rigorous design and execution that are likely to [...] avoid research waste."
DESIGN: Census of all human research ethics committees in Australia
Key question: does the committee have access to a qualified statistician?
CONCLUSIONS
Large and unjustified variation in practice between ethics committees
Many claims of having access to a statistician were not backed up with qualifications
Many committees have a narrow view of the value of statisticians
Recommendation: Randomised trials and prediction models should not receive ethical approval unless the research team includes](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:n2yhxn2fcj4ccyl6qkim43zh/bafkreid3wl6hgzbnoopsexcv4ckajulba4u2gvx2pdfhg2fjts6hq36sbq@jpeg)
Statisticians are often ignored, don't ignore this poster Adrian Barnett¹, Nicole White¹, Taya A Collyer2 Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Peninsula Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne PROBLEM: Waste in research Much health and medical research is wasted due to inappropriate study design or analysis Waste could be reduced using expert review from a qualified statistician Ethical review is an ideal stage to get expert input Recently updated Declaration of Helsinki: "research must have a scientifically sound and rigorous design and execution that are likely to [...] avoid research waste." DESIGN: Census of all human research ethics committees in Australia Key question: does the committee have access to a qualified statistician? CONCLUSIONS Large and unjustified variation in practice between ethics committees Many claims of having access to a statistician were not backed up with qualifications Many committees have a narrow view of the value of statisticians Recommendation: Randomised trials and prediction models should not receive ethical approval unless the research team includes
Strong #Metascience2025
01.07.2025 07:21 — 👍 16 🔁 8 💬 1 📌 0There is no journal of metascience, metascientists have made something better than a journal: metaror.org! ;)
02.07.2025 17:11 — 👍 6 🔁 3 💬 0 📌 0
🤔 Which risk-of-bias tool is appropriate for a diagnosis or prognosis study?
Systematic review authors frequently ask this question. There are at least 14 tools, and the choice depends on your research question and aims.
⏩ Find out, in our overview and guidance (open access): tinyurl.com/3ry6n9d2
❓ In people with HIV, is using two different rapid tests together ('parallel testing') to diagnose TB more accurate than using only one?
An 'incremental' accuracy question: few Cochrane Reviews have yet addressed such questions.
Adult review: shorturl.at/r9CUG
Child review: shorturl.at/nSosK
