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@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    Goal pays haven’t moved and I’ve already pointed out a dozen of so methodological flaws around the Cass report that you are choosing to ignore.

    You haven’t pointed out, let alone substantiated, any. If you truly believe you have then I implore to use the rapid response function on the bmj site and communicate these catastrophic flaws to the editorial team immediately. I’d be eager to know what their reply is.

    • Cogency@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      I don’t need to, it is already happening within the scientific community of which I am merely a part.

      • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        Don’t abdicate responsibility to someone else, you’ve clearly got a firmer grasp of the issue than the editorial board of the British Medical Journal. You would be neglecting your duty as “part of the scientific community” to abdicate responsibility on such an important matter.

        Indeed the whole medical establishment must be told about the critical flaws in the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system before other medical scandals are allowed to happen. Imagine having that on your conscience.