- Slides: 9
Empty reviews? CDPLPG
CDPLPG Reviews • 15 empty reviews ‘Parturient montes nasceter ridiculus mus’ • Position on whether or not to referencing excluded studies or any other kind of study in the Discussion? • An interesting project, but…
Some puzzles • • • What is the worry about variation? Why do incidence and prevalence matter? What do we learn from this? Updates: are empty reviews different? How do they differ, across what parameters?
• Consistency is not the same as quality • Guidelines might be a good idea, but not clear about the ‘value added’ of these data • The challenges are upstream, starting with the inclusion criteria.
CDPLPG • Reasons for empty reviews: – Inclusion criteria – Predominance of other treatment controls – Dearth of research (often cinderella topics) – NOT outcomes or outcome measures • The important issue is how empty reviews are being reported • Two options rather than four
Of the Montayn whiche shoke Ryght so it happeth / that he that menaceth hath drede and is ferdfull / wherof Esope reherceth to vs suche a fable Of a hylle whiche beganne to tremble and shake by cause of the molle whiche delved hit / And whanne the folke sawe that the erthe beganne thus to shake / they were sore aferd and dredeful / and durst not wel come ne approche the hylle / But after whanne they were come nyghe to the Montayne / & knewe how the molle caused this hylle shakynge / theyr doubte and drede were converted unto Joye / and beganne alle to lawhe /And therfore men ought not to doubte al folk whiche ben of grete wordes and menaces / For somme menacen that haue grete doubte