FITNET-NHS Esther Crawley - 5th protocol out now

FMMM1 said:
"All research commissioned by the NIHR and UKRI is subject to robust peer review processes to ensure that all the studies funded use appropriate outcome criteria to assess and measure their impact."
Click to expand...

Peer review . . . probably.
Robust peer review . . . not at all. Or at least not in the particular genre of research that matters to people who have no diagnostic test for illness. That peer reviewing is more along the lines of a 'gentlemen's club'. ;)
 
Snowdrop said:
Peer review . . . probably.
Robust peer review . . . not at all. Or at least not in the particular genre of research that matters to people who have no diagnostic test for illness. That peer reviewing is more along the lines of a 'gentlemen's club'. ;)
Click to expand...

Here's an extract from @Trish post re Brian Hughes article*
"York researchers, commissioned by NICE to review the research evidence on which they had already published a review of the same trials full of caveats/limitations in JAMA several years earlier".
https://www.s4me.info/threads/nice-...-10th-november-2020.17687/page-51#post-362044

So it's pretty clear that the limitations of these studies [unblinded + subjective outcomes] were known. So yes it looks like a self lubricating wheel - you pay me (via Government grants) to say the right thing --- then I'll say it.

@Jonathan Edwards has some interesting insights e.g. ordinary people often being able to see more clearly than the (financially interested) academics. Also, being asked "whose side was he [Jonathan] on" i.e. the medical profession or the patients side - the answer is clear from his input here.

*'The Science Bit'
https://thesciencebit.net/2021/08/1...the-new-nice-guideline-ask-about-the-old-one/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom