My #MRCCTU colleagues Jayne Tierney and Sarah Burdett are giving a #Cochrane #Methods Support Web Clinic this morning on the topic of Prospective Collaborative #metaAnalysis #justFAMEit https://training.cochrane.org/learning-events/learning-live/methods/msu-web-clinics

I found that
- academic age is highest for #Cochrane Reviews and narrative reviews, and lowest for PRISMA-based systematic reviews

Cochrane reviews require a lot of time and experience to perform. Narrative reviews require eminence because they provide a résumé and set future agendas. Standardized systematic reviews have a clear setting of procedures and tasks. They are ideal for PhD projects!

What are #consumers and health providers' views and experiences of working in formal partnerships to plan, deliver and evaluate health services? | #Cochrane

https://www.cochrane.org/CD013274/COMMUN_what-are-consumers-and-health-providers-views-and-experiences-working-formal-partnerships-plan

NEW #Cochrane #consumers and health providers’ views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co‐produced qualitative evidence synthesis - Merner, B - 2023 | Cochrane Library
(Congratulations Bronwyn and team!)

https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/NZjICXLWMAfzxyyEC63Vh5?domain=cochranelibrary.com

#HealthServices #ConsumerVoices #Inclusion

@pfred60 @auscovid19 I think that too many doctors learned about #Semmelweis and have not been able to move past that to atmospheric transmissions. They have confused public mask use with masks in operating theatre. The #Cochrane review has done to #COVID what the BMJ did to #measles vaccines and #autism.

Cochrane Mask Study: Bad Science Amplified by Bad Journalism into another Covid Conspiracy

Last month, the media claimed that the most “rigorous and extensive review of the scientific literature” concluded that masks don’t reduce the spread of Covid. Their source: the infamous Cochrane Review,, which examined 78 studies that supposedly looked at the effects of masks on preventing infections. However, only 6 of these were done during the Covid pandemic. The 72 others examined influenza and nonpharmaceutical interventions other than masking. Only 2 of the 78 studies were specifically about Covid and masking & both of these showed that masking DOES reduce Covid infections.

Lead author Tom Jefferson works for the Brownstone Institute, a Covid misinformation factory that is funded by dark money. The Cochrane Library came out with a statement on Friday saying that the characterization of the findings is misleading and that the review was inconclusive.

#covid #Cochrane #masking #CovidIsNotOver #FakeNews

RT @BR24
Eine Review des Forschungsnetzwerks #Cochrane sorgte im Februar für Aufregung: Angeblich beweise sie, #Masken hätten in der #Corona-Pandemie wenig oder nichts genutzt. Nun hat die Cochrane-Chefredakteurin diese Deutung als falsch zurückgewiesen.
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/cochrane-entschuldigt-sich-fuer-missverstaendliche-masken-studie,TYOPT19

RT @m_grill
Die #Cochrane Collaboration räumt mit Falschinterpretationen ihrer Studie zu Masken auf: Der Nutzen von Masken (wenn sie richtig getragen werden) ist unstrittig. Untersucht wurde aber, welchen Effekt die Empfehlung (!) zum Maske-Tragen hatte. #Masken #FFP2 http://sz.de/1.5767982

Spät, aber letztlich doch rudert #Cochrane @Cochrane_DE zurück. Bitte teilen, danke!

Danke @EckerleIsabella !

@dokhollidays
---
RT @EckerleIsabella
Das angesehene Cochrane-Netzwerk rudert zurück bei Studie zur Schutzwirkung von Masken, die kürzlich sehr viel Aufmerksamkeit bekommen hat. Man wünscht sich, dass Kollegen & Journalisten, die die Studie so hervorgehoben haben, dies nun auch klarstellen. Masken schützen! https://twitte…
https://twitter.com/EckerleIsabella/status/1634526773449830400

Anmerkung zum Review über #Masken bei #Cochrane selbst:

Ich habe den immer respektvoll auftretenden Michael Osterholm noch selten so wütend gehört we hier im Podcast ab Minute 39 bzw im Transkript.

Anhören oder lesen, dann bleiben keine weiteren Fragen zum Thema.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/episode-125-masks-memories-middle-ground

Die Chefredakteurin der #Cochrane Library veröffentlichte nun ein Statement zum von mit dem Thema befassten Wissenschaftler:innen hart kritisierten und von Querdenkern gefeierten Review über die Wirksamkeit von Masken.

"Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."

Schön. Aber dass dieses zahme Statement 1½ Monate brauchte und dass das Review weiterhin ohne irgendeinen Hinweis veröffentlicht ist, zeigt, dass Cochrane bei all seinen enormen Verdiensten um Evidence based Medicine offenbar Probleme in der Führungsebene hat.
https://www.cochrane.org/de/node/81904

#COVID19 #Masken

Da sollten einige Redaktionen jetzt mal endgültig ihre Artikel über den Review korrigieren. #Cochrane #Masken
---
RT @zeynep
NEWS: Cochrane says lead author of a mask review misrepresented its findings, apologizes for summary statement that was imprecise and says they will update it.

They say their review did NOT find masks don't work.

Plus, I examine the actual evidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-st…
https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1634161449529475072

It looks like much of the politicization of the new Cochrane report comes from "City-Journal"(footnote 1), which is the mass-media arm of the Manhattan Institute. However, the author of the Cochrane report seems to be fully supportive of this aggressive politicizing of his work (2).

I haven't given much attention to the Manhattan Institute before, so I wanted to look into them. A quick look at the CityJournal Twitter feed showed them to be strident partisans. The City Journal essay (1) is nothing more than factionalist self-congratulation (i.e. not reporting, not even a coherent argument). The Manhattan Institute itself is clearly meant as a conservative propaganda machine, though they frequently take the stance of "we are just seeking the truth".

The Manhattan Institute is the type of right-wing propaganda that appeals to intellectuals who may be turned off by the crudeness of Fox News. They 'support' their assertions with mountains of (cherry picked) data. Some people think it's just a giant trolling operation aimed at centrist and left-leaning intellectuals -- wasting their time responding to the massive piles of jibberish, out of respect for their conservative colleagues who think this stuff is important.

The propagandistic mission of the Manhattan Institute is on full display in their survey report about "Critical Social Justice" in schools (3). Leaving aside the scientific problems with the analysis, it's pretty clear that their goal is to figure out how to promote conservative ideas in public schools and raise the next generation of Republican voters. Yet through this, they give lip service to the idea that they are trying to prevent indoctrination in the schools. As if the way you prevent indoctrination is to purge opposing ideas. The seem to have objection to the capitalist framing that is pervasive throughout state-run schools.

Finally, I'll note that the MI's 'about' page highlights an endorsement from the Claremont Institute, placing MI squarely in the same network as the CI (4). They don't seem bothered by the CI's firm support for John Eastman (5), who is a Senior Fellow at the CI and publicly argues for establishing tyranny in the USA (via revoking citizenship for the children of immigrants like Kamala Harris (6), and advising Trump to try to organize a coup while Eastman provided legal propaganda to justify it (7)).

1.https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
2. https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-lead-author-of-new-cochrane
3. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/school-choice-not-enough-impact-of-critical-social-justice-ideology-in-american-education
4. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/about
5. https://www.claremont.org/scholar-bio/john-c-eastman/
6. https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483
7. https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/22/politics/trump-pence-election-memo-fact-check/index.html

#ManhattanInstitute #propaganda #conservative #RightWing #education #COVID #masking #Cochrane #ClaremontInstitute #JohnEastman #antifa #USA #GOP #Trump

This emphasis on "randomized controlled trials" reminds me of the enthusiasm for 'evidence based medicine', which likewise has a tendency to dismiss any evidence that does not come from this rigid experimental design. While focusing on RCTs can be a way to filter out non-rigorous research, it discards a lot of good research without guaranteeing that the remaining research is itself rigorous. This isn't how real science works (e.g. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hello-world/). This focus on RCT seems to be the epitome of the capitalist bureaucratization of knowledge -- it's not about understanding the world, it's about concentrating power.

#science #Cochrane #RCT #evidence #medicine

RT @ErnMedBlog
Neue Datenlage zu #Asthma & #VitaminD: Während das #Cochrane-Review aus dem Jahr 2016 noch Vorteile für die VitD-Gabe sah, ist das aufgrund neuerer Studien (mit moderater & hoher Evidenz) NICHT mehr der Fall. ⬇️ ... https://twitter.com/CochraneLibrary/status/1626163480788099073

Masks don't work says a study. Wait what, seriously? (No)

Actually this
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/masks-revisited

#covid19 #masks #science #Cochrane #StevenNovella

2/n

Do #Masks work?

"The authors of the review ultimately concluded there was no evidence of masks making a difference. On top of the limitations described above, keep in mind that “no evidence of a difference” is different from “evidence of no difference.”

Don’t use an inconclusive
#Cochrane review to reject the value of masks, or any other intervention for that matter. 

#covid

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/do-masks-work

Auch der #COVID-"Blockbuster" #Remdesivir bringt keinen Überlebensvorteil.
Wußte man schon länger, die aktuelle #Cochrane-Analyse bestätigt es nochmals:
"Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all‐cause mortality or in‐hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID‐19."
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014962.pub2/full

Dann hoffen wir mal, dass die AMWF-Leitlinie dazu ihre Empfehlungen überarbeitet:
https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/113_Internistische-Intensiv-Notfall/113-001LGk_S3_Empfehlungen-zur-stationaeren-Therapie-von-Patienten-mit-COVID-19_2022-09.pdf

... insbesondere weil dort doch einige Autoren Gelder von #Gilead bekommen ...
https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/113_Internistische-Intensiv-Notfall/113-001LGi_S3_Empfehlungen-zur-stationaeren-Therapie-von-Patienten-mit-COVID-19_2022-09.pdf

... und die #AWMF das nur als "moderaten #Interessenkonflikt" einschätzt.

#MEZIS

Ja ich weiß, ihr wisst es eigentlich alle, aber noch mal: Die wissenschaftliche Evidenz, dass #Masken wirken, ist groß. Wir können euch hier auch 22 Studien und drei Meta-Studien zeigen, die das belegen. Warum soll #Cochrane das Gegenteil zeigen? Tun sie nicht, sagen sie sogar selbst. Sie geben selbst zu, dass das Studiendesign gravierende Mängel aufweist. Der Grund, wieso ausgerechnet diese Studie so viral ging, wird euch vielleicht (nicht) überraschen. https://www.volksverpetzer.de/faktencheck/masken-schuetzen-cochrane-widerlegt-nicht/?utm_source=mstdn

#Wirksamkeit von #Masken ? Nichts Genaues weiß man nicht:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

#Cochrane #masks #effectivity