Importantly, garbage in = garbage out. These papers should always list their inclusion and exclusion criteria, and you should look carefully at them. A systematic review of cross sectional analyses, for example, would not be particularly powerful, and could easily be trumped by a few randomized controlled trials. Conversely, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials would be exceedingly powerful. Therefore, these papers tend to be designed such that they eliminate the low quality studies and focus on high quality studies
Lapalisse, direi. Manca quel piccolo dettaglio per cui andare alla fonte delle ricerche e leggersele capendo se è garbage o roba seria non è sempre semplice.
Ad esempio: i paper della Pfizer, quelli pubblicati come evidenze scientifiche dell’efficacia del vaccino cominarty , su cui si è deciso che al 98% impediva l’infezione, chi li ha letti di voi?
tipo anche solo questo passaggio:
BNT162b is a mRNA vaccine for prevention of COVID-19. The vaccine is made of a mRNA encoding for
the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (S) encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs).
The sequence of the S protein was chosen based on the sequence for the “SARS-CoV-2 isolate Wuhan-Hu1”, which was available when the program was initiated: GenBank: MN908947.3 (complete genome)
and GenBank: QHD43416.1 (spike surface glycoprotein)
Quanti lo hanno letto?
E quanti sono andati vedere, nella GenBank, di quando esattamente era?
garbage in - garbage out, non scordiamolo.