Breaking Down Cass Review Myths and Misconceptions: What You Need to Know: Part 1 – The Quackometer Blog
www.quackometer.net

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.”

  • Cogency@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    3 months ago

    “You can of course. Statistics are not required to explain why a self selective Facebook poll is low quality while a multi centre 5 year study with followup and compartor is of a much higher quality”.

    That’s wrong when you are trying to be scientifically correct. A science paper without that math isn’t science my dude. And comparing trans healthcare data to Facebook polls is ridiculous

    • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      It’s remarkably common in systematic reviews, a feature even. You give the impression that this is a new or foreign concept to yourself and are just encountering these ideas for the first time.

      Search on pubmed or the bmj or the Cochrane library for other systematic reviews using the Newcastle-Ottawa score. You’ll trip over them.

      And comparing trans healthcare data to Facebook polls is ridiculous

      One of the studies reviewed recruited patients over Facebook and polled them.

      “They dismissed 98% of the data” remains a lie.

      • Cogency@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        3 months ago

        Again I’ve written these reports. It is absolutely not common practice to disclude data without scientific reason and analysis. It is explicitly taught not to do it that way in college. And it is not scientific to do that without a statistical threshold and confidence analysis of your reasoning.

        • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          22·
          3 months ago

          Again I’ve written these reports.

          I am forced to strongly doubt this given your whole misunderstanding of the basic concepts on assessing methodical quality…

          Certainly, you’ve never authored a systematic review for a reputable medical journal.

          But don’t take my word for it…

          https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_13/13_5_2_3_tools_for_assessing_methodological_quality_or_risk_of.htm

          It is absolutely not common practice to disclude data without scientific reason and analysis.

          You mean such as using a method like the Newcastle-Ottawa score to assess data quality?

          It is explicitly taught not to do it that way in college.

          If your college course covered systematic reviews and didn’t include a review of study assessment methods, ask for a refund.

          And is not scientific to do that without a statistical threshold

          Statistics are not required to assess that a study without a comparator is weaker than one with.

          “They dismissed 98% of data” remains a lie.

          • Cogency@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            3 months ago

            The Newcastle method is not seen as a scientific basis for dismissal on its own.

            98% of the data was dismissed in the synthesis and was not used to reach the conclusion that there wasn’t enough scientific evidence to support transition when 98% of the science says that is wrong.

            And every scientific paper is expected to be comprehensive on its subject matter and/or thesis.

            • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              12·
              3 months ago

              It’s not used for “dismissal” it’s used to score studies on their likelihood of bias. Studies without appropriate controls for example are more susceptible to bias than those with.

              98% of the data was dismissed in the synthesis

              Demonstrably false, only low quality studies were excluded from the synthesis which account for less than half of the 103 reviewed. A lie is a lie no matter how often repeated.

              and were not used in the conclusion that there wasn’t enough scientific evidence to support transition when 98% of the science says that is wrong.

              That’s not what the conclusions say, for example:

              Synthesis of moderate-quality and high-quality studies showed consistent evidence demonstrating efficacy for suppressing puberty

              And

              Evidence from mainly pre–post studies with 12-month follow-up showed improvements in psychological outcomes

              “They dismissed 98% of data” remains a lie.

                • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  11·
                  3 months ago

                  That was published a month before Cass came out and so hasn’t anything to do with the two systematic reviews being discussed above. It doesn’t even mention them.

                  I’m uncertain what expertise a business graduate can bring to assessing the quality of a systematic review in medicine.

                  Readers are free to Google the author and subsequently make a judgement on their objectivity on the subject matter.

                  • Cogency@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    3 months ago

                    And yet you have no scientific reason other than an ad hominem fallacy with the author with which to dismiss the criticism with. That like the Cass report are not scientifically sufficient reasons to disclude the criticism or the data respectively.

                    And I can garuntee you that the Cass report was not peer reviewed like all of the studies they dismissed were because it would have been torn apart. That’s the real litmus test of scientific debate.