CDPLPG Reviews 15 empty reviews ‘Parturient montes nasceter ridiculus mus’ Position on whether or not to referencing excluded studies or any other kind of study in the Discussion? An interesting project, but…
Some puzzles What is the worry about variation? Why do incidence and prevalence matter? What do we learn from this? Updates: are empty reviews different? How do they differ, across what parameters?
Consistency is not the same as quality Guidelines might be a good idea, but not clear about the ‘value added’ of these data The challenges are upstream, starting with the inclusion criteria.
CDPLPG Reasons for empty reviews: –Inclusion criteria –Predominance of other treatment controls –Dearth of research (often cinderella topics) –NOT outcomes or outcome measures The important issue is how empty reviews are being reported Two options rather than four
Of the Montayn whiche shoke Ryght so it happeth / that he that menaceth hath drede and is ferdfull / wherof Esope reherceth to vs suche a fable Of a hylle whiche beganne to tremble and shake by cause of the molle whiche delved hit / And whanne the folke sawe that the erthe beganne thus to shake / they were sore aferd and dredeful / and durst not wel come ne approche the hylle / But after whanne they were come nyghe to the Montayne / & knewe how the molle caused this hylle shakynge / theyr doubte and drede were converted unto Joye / and beganne alle to lawhe /And therfore men ought not to doubte al folk whiche ben of grete wordes and menaces / For somme menacen that haue grete doubte