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.”

  • streetlights
    cake
    OP
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    2 months ago

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

    • Cogency
      link
      English
      12 months ago

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

      • streetlights
        cake
        OP
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        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
          link
          English
          12 months ago

          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
            cake
            OP
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 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”?