hrefna OP , 2 months ago An example of what I'm pinging on: Their quality assessment is based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale which they then converted to the AHRQ standards. Which is fine… but that does mean that anything where cohorts are judged to be "not comparable" is automatically poor quality. But they used a very broad scope to classify things in there. For example, the one at the bottom of page 97 used a cisgender control group… but that didn't count as a comparator because they weren't trans #CassReview
An example of what I'm pinging on:
Their quality assessment is based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale which they then converted to the AHRQ standards.
Which is fine… but that does mean that anything where cohorts are judged to be "not comparable" is automatically poor quality.
But they used a very broad scope to classify things in there.
For example, the one at the bottom of page 97 used a cisgender control group… but that didn't count as a comparator because they weren't trans
#CassReview