Medicina Baseada em Evidências
Conceitos-chave da epidemiologia clínica: ensaios randomizados tipo “stepped wedge”.
8 Out, 2021 | 11:28hKey concepts in clinical epidemiology: Stepped wedge trials – Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Estudo epidemiológico | Avaliação da concordância entre corpos de evidência de estudos randomizados controlados e estudos de coorte em pesquisas nutricionais.
5 Out, 2021 | 11:13h
Comentário no Twitter
The difference in results between RCTs and cohort studies in nutrition research was small, finds study.
However, with some substantial statistical heterogeneity in cohort studies, differences or potential bias cannot be excluded, say @LSchwingshackl et alhttps://t.co/dyUqhn87V0
— The BMJ (@bmj_latest) September 17, 2021
Guia para estatísticas e métodos: análise durante “Group Sequential Clinical Trials”.
4 Out, 2021 | 09:59hInterim Analyses During Group Sequential Clinical Trials – JAMA (gratuito por tempo limitado)
Editores se unem para combater imagens adulteradas em artigos de pesquisa.
1 Out, 2021 | 20:09hPublishers unite to tackle doctored images in research papers – Nature
M-A | Magnitude da resposta ao placebo entre as modalidades de tratamento usadas para a depressão resistente em adultos.
1 Out, 2021 | 19:14hComentário convidado: Treatment-Resistant Depression—Resistant to Placebos as Well? – JAMA Network Open
Comentário no Twitter
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that in studies of patients with treatment-resistant depression, the placebo effect was large and consistent despite the modality use. https://t.co/U6efJo7rJ8
— JAMA Network Open (@JAMANetworkOpen) September 24, 2021
Important systematic review study: The placebo effect in clinical trials of depression, even if treatment-resistant, is huge!
Magnitude of the Placebo Response Across Treatment-Resistant Depression in Adults https://t.co/ey2hIpE61r via @JAMANetworkOpen part of @JAMANetwork
— Yasser Ad-Dab'bagh (@yasseraddabbagh) September 25, 2021
Question
Why does research on 'treatment resistance' have such high placebo response?3 Answers
1)Research patients arent nearly as sick as patients in clinical practice
2)Research patients get much more attention than clinical patients
3)Research raises very high expectations https://t.co/f8CyTpKofV— Allen Frances (@AllenFrancesMD) September 26, 2021
(fio – clique para saber mais)
The paradox of "treatment resistance" in psychiatry that doesn't seem to generate much discussion: if the depression is so treatment resistant that we are considering things like invasive brain stimulation, how come it responds to "placebo" so robustly?/1https://t.co/oQOBPXtVXO
— Awais Aftab (@awaisaftab) September 26, 2021
Editorial | É hora de consenso sobre “diretrizes de consenso”?
1 Out, 2021 | 19:12hIt is time for consensus on ‘consensus statements’? – British Journal of Sports Medicine
Comentário no Twitter
Is it time for a #consensus on "consensus statements"?🤔
This #OpenAccess article looks into if some of them deserve their prestige, bias in methods of development, and proposes future steps to improve their quality⬇️https://t.co/uZUObQX6FW pic.twitter.com/lF62IUm49D
— British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM) (@BJSM_BMJ) September 25, 2021
Opinião | Remunerar os participantes não é o caminho para aprimorar o recrutamento em ensaios clínicos.
1 Out, 2021 | 19:05hPaying participants isn’t the way to improve clinical trial recruitment – STAT
Opinião | “Turistas de equidade em saúde”: como estudiosos brancos estão colonizando a pesquisa sobre disparidades em saúde.
1 Out, 2021 | 19:04h‘Health equity tourists’: How white scholars are colonizing research on health disparities – STAT
Interpretação bayesiana dos valores de p em estudos clínicos.
1 Out, 2021 | 18:30hBayesian interpretation of p values in clinical trials – BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
Comentário no Twitter
How to interpret p values in clinical trials from a Bayesian perspective? A guideline with examples by John Ferguson#OpenAccess
📰https://t.co/cDMpSG5K9B pic.twitter.com/83wzpSTerV— BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (@BMJ_EBM) September 26, 2021
Novas diretrizes para aprimorar os padrões de relato dos estudos que investigam mecanismos causais.
1 Out, 2021 | 18:29hComunicado de imprensa: New guidelines to improve reporting standards of studies that investigate causal mechanisms – University of Oxford
Artigo original: A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: The AGReMA Statement – JAMA (gratuito por tempo limitado)
Comentário: Reporting Findings From Mediation Analyses – JAMA (gratuito por tempo limitado)
Comentário no Twitter (fio – clique para saber mais)
✨NEW✨ "A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies – The AGReMA statement" is now available @JAMA_current pic.twitter.com/nrt6grhomP
— Hopin Lee (@hopinlee) September 21, 2021