Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes News and Research
Diabetes News
Statins are back in favour
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LucySW" data-source="post: 1246542" data-attributes="member: 113749"><p>I've just had a quick look. There is no section outlining what data or studies looked at. There's no mention of any additional data being examined beyond re-surveying existing RCTs - or even a clear statement of precisely which RCTs they looked at. </p><p></p><p>So it seems they didn't actually look at the controversial clinical trial reports that Ben Goldacre has been agitating to access, or any of the additional statins trial data that Rory Collins has private access to. </p><p></p><p>So, preliminarily, this seems to be a general and abstract argument in principle about what RCTs can be taken to show. </p><p></p><p>This impression is supported by this language at the end under Contributors: </p><p></p><p>"RC had the idea for this paper and wrote the initial drafts." And it's headlined as a Review. </p><p></p><p>So it seems to be a general theoretical argument about interpretation - not an examination of new data.</p><p></p><p>LSW</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LucySW, post: 1246542, member: 113749"] I've just had a quick look. There is no section outlining what data or studies looked at. There's no mention of any additional data being examined beyond re-surveying existing RCTs - or even a clear statement of precisely which RCTs they looked at. So it seems they didn't actually look at the controversial clinical trial reports that Ben Goldacre has been agitating to access, or any of the additional statins trial data that Rory Collins has private access to. So, preliminarily, this seems to be a general and abstract argument in principle about what RCTs can be taken to show. This impression is supported by this language at the end under Contributors: "RC had the idea for this paper and wrote the initial drafts." And it's headlined as a Review. So it seems to be a general theoretical argument about interpretation - not an examination of new data. LSW [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes News and Research
Diabetes News
Statins are back in favour
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…