Skeptic

1331 readers

1 users here now

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.

Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.

Things we like:

Civility
Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
Humor

Things we don't like:

Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
Wild speculation on events with no evidence
Low-effort comments and posts

Other communities of interest:

Fediverse vs Disinformation

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

acosmichippo

kabe

Breaking Down Cass Review Myths and Misconceptions: What You Need to Know – The Quackometer (www.quackometer.net)

submitted 8 months ago by Streetlights to c/skeptic

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Seen the "98% of studies were ignored!" one doing the rounds on social media. The editorial in the BMJ put it in much better terms:

"One emerging criticism of the Cass review is that it set the methodological bar too high for research to be included in its analysis and discarded too many studies on the basis of quality. In fact, the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Streetlights 1 points 8 months ago (8 children)

They all use the same Newcastle-Ottawa system to score studies based on their likelihood of bias in the exact same way the Cass reviews do. The method you described as a joke.

[–] Cogency 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)

It's not an indicator of bias, no causal study has been done to show that there is a relationship between bias and the Newcastle Ottawa scale

[–] Streetlights 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

Studies that self select their cohort and don't include adequate controls are more susceptible to bias than those that do otherwise. Evaluating studies based on their susceptibility to bias is a vital part of the systematic review process.

You can read more about it here https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

[–] Cogency 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But not actually proof of bias.

[–] Streetlights 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Ah young padawan, there is no such thing as proof of bias. There is merely the risk of susceptibility of it.

[–] Cogency 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Exactly which is why the Ottawa whatever standard is not sufficient to discard a study. You have to do more.

[–] Streetlights 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Again, you really need to feed this startling discovery back to the medical community which has been using NOS for over 20 years. What a scandal.

[–] Cogency 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No the medical community largely respects the short comings and uses of the Ottawa protocol. That's what made Class's report so insulting.

[–] Streetlights 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Blimey, you're speaking for the medical community itself as a whole now, pray tell then why haven't they binned every systematic review ever carried out using the NOS system?

Why after 20 years of use is this system only being rubbished after two reviews into gender affirming healthcare in the UK were published?

Why are you the only person complaining about the Newcastle-Ottawa system when everyone else online is making up lies like "98% of data was dismissed"?

load more comments (4 replies)