Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://med-mastodon.com/users/luckytran/statuses/112485574152968259">Dr. Lucky Tran :verified: (luckytran@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Thursday, 23-May-2024 01:12:26 JST</a><a href="https://med-mastodon.com/@luckytran" title="luckytran@med-mastodon.com"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/28159-48-20221116063634.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Dr. Lucky Tran :verified:" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Dr. Lucky Tran :verified:</a><div><a href="https://med-mastodon.com/@luckytran/112485571477215596" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>The new review showing the effectiveness of masks addresses the flawed Cochrane study, which was deliberately misinterpreted by anti-maskers &amp; some media to spread misinformation around masks.</p><p>This new review will serve as a gold standard reference to debunk mask misinformation.</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/3128606#notice-6195686">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-05-23T01:12:26+09:00" title="Thursday, 23-May-2024 01:12:26 JST">about 6 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://med-mastodon.com/@luckytran/112485574152968259" rel="external" title="Sent from med-mastodon.com via ActivityPub">med-mastodon.com</a></span></span><a href="https://med-mastodon.com/@luckytran/112485574152968259">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/2676990">The need for a new review on masks was highlighted by a widely publicized polarization in scientific opinion. The masks section of a 2023 Cochrane review of non-pharmaceutical interventions (9) was—controversially—limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It was interpreted by the press and by some but not all of its own authors to mean that “masks don’t work” and “mask mandates did nothing” (10). Cochrane’s editor-in-chief felt the need to state publicly that in Cochrane’s view, the review’s findings did not support such a conclusion (11). Some scholars were quick to question the review’s methodology, especially key flaws in the meta-analysis and omission of a vast body of non-RCT evidence (12–16).</a></label><br><a href="https://cdn.masto.host/medmastodoncom/media_attachments/files/112/485/572/718/672/836/original/fb20e2384b570e1d.png" rel="external">https://cdn.masto.host/medmastodoncom/media_attachments/files/112/485/572/718/672/836/original/fb20e2384b570e1d.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Dr. Lucky Tran :verified: (luckytran@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Thursday, 23-May-2024 01:12:26 JST Dr. Lucky Tran :verified:
in reply to
The new review showing the effectiveness of masks addresses the flawed Cochrane study, which was deliberately misinterpreted by anti-maskers & some media to spread misinformation around masks.
This new review will serve as a gold standard reference to debunk mask misinformation.
In conversationabout 6 months ago from med-mastodon.compermalink
Attachments
1. The need for a new review on masks was highlighted by a widely publicized polarization in scientific opinion. The masks section of a 2023 Cochrane review of non-pharmaceutical interventions (9) was—controversially—limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It was interpreted by the press and by some but not all of its own authors to mean that “masks don’t work” and “mask mandates did nothing” (10). Cochrane’s editor-in-chief felt the need to state publicly that in Cochrane’s view, the review’s findings did not support such a conclusion (11). Some scholars were quick to question the review’s methodology, especially key flaws in the meta-analysis and omission of a vast body of non-RCT evidence (12–16).
  https://cdn.masto.host/medmastodoncom/media_attachments/files/112/485/572/718/672/836/original/fb20e2384b570e1d.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice