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.”
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
But not actually proof of bias.
Ah young padawan, there is no such thing as proof of bias. There is merely the risk of susceptibility of it.
Exactly which is why the Ottawa whatever standard is not sufficient to discard a study. You have to do more.
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.
No the medical community largely respects the short comings and uses of the Ottawa protocol. That’s what made Class’s report so insulting.
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”?