I came across this tweet. Where someone was doing research that they thought could be controversial (gender bias in hiring) and so asked others to be a red team to look at the methodology. The red team terminology comes, I think, from cyber security where you basically hire a team to attack your system to see how far they can get with an attack. It does feel a good idea for research methodology - particularly when deviating from the norm.
Although if I was following a cyber type methodology I think there are simpler, less human intensive things that could be done - following an equivalent of a threat analysis where you set out your system in detail, look for potential threats (often using standard threats) and show how you mitigate these threats.
If the PACE authors had taken this approach they would never had followed the protocol they did. They would of course had to change things to deal with all the flaws discovered. But then if you look at early comments you could argue patients (particularly @Tom Kindlon ) told them early on about the flaws and they ignored this.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1723936087414812923
Although if I was following a cyber type methodology I think there are simpler, less human intensive things that could be done - following an equivalent of a threat analysis where you set out your system in detail, look for potential threats (often using standard threats) and show how you mitigate these threats.
If the PACE authors had taken this approach they would never had followed the protocol they did. They would of course had to change things to deal with all the flaws discovered. But then if you look at early comments you could argue patients (particularly @Tom Kindlon ) told them early on about the flaws and they ignored this.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1723936087414812923