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.”

  • Cogency@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Exactly which is why the Ottawa whatever standard is not sufficient to discard a study. You have to do more.

    • streetlights@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Again, you really need to feed this startling discovery back to the medical community which has been using NOS for over 20 years. What a scandal.

      • Cogency@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        No the medical community largely respects the short comings and uses of the Ottawa protocol. That’s what made Class’s report so insulting.