@floriannaudet.bsky.social
Meta-researcher, Clinician, Professor at Rennes University, Senior member at Institut Universitaire de France, affiliate at METRICStanford. ORCID: 0000-0003-3760-3801
Posts are my own.
Website: https://restores.univ-rennes.fr/
@elisabethbik.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialHahaha at least they changed the fonts.
@margaritanadenka.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialGreat post! Congrats Florian 🙌
@floriannaudet.bsky.socialIt was rated as unclear risk of bias. The sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias was perform between low/unclear versus high risk of bias. It remained undetected here...
@floriannaudet.bsky.socialThe Cohrane meta-analysis did not include nortriptyline and thus the problematic loop was not included.
@floriannaudet.bsky.social@floriannaudet.bsky.socialHey @jama.com, your webpage "Research, Methods, Statistics" is an incredibly useful resource. One question: why illustrate it with a photo of Excel that looks like the worst copy-and-paste job you’d expect to find in a fraudulent study? The irony is perfect. 😜
@rboussageon.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialYes, and David Taylor says that all of this comes down to interpretation... and therefore to authority. It's time for you to come up with REB, a method of interpretation!
@ploederl.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialInteresting thread of @literalbanana.bsky.social on X about our recent zombie-study in the wider context surrounding efficacy of antidepressants for children and adolescents. Thanks!
twitter-thread.com/t/1974884739...
@ploederl.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialOoops, here is the link:
mmmdata.io/posts/2025/0...
@ploederl.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialSee this excellent blog by @ianhussey.mmmdata.io
for background on implausible effect sizes, including the reference to the 🍫 vs. 💩 study.
We thought of including this comparison in the paper but did not, in order to avoid being all too provocative and rejected
@floriannaudet.bsky.social🍫 or 💩? About the effect size reported in a trial that shaped the estimated effect of fluoxetine in meta-analyses of pediatric depression, my stellar co-author @ploederl.bsky.social says: “It’s the kind of effect size you only get if you ask people whether they prefer chocolate or faeces.” 👇👇👇
@ploederl.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialThanks, Erick!
@eturnermd1.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialExcellent work by @ploederl.bsky.social , @floriannaudet.bsky.social & colleagues. There had bn 2 NMAs published in @thelancet.com on meds 4 pediatric depression reporting o'all SMDs that seemed 2 good 2 B true, then found the culprit–an outlier with an SMD>4!
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
@drjacekdebiec.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialCongrats!
@floriannaudet.bsky.social🔥 OUR STUDY FEATURED IN NATURE NEWS What if one flawed zombie trial 🧟 helped shape the evidence for treating depression in children? Quote : "Elia Abi-Jaoude, [...] calls the paper a “slam-dunk study”. “I hope it will get wide exposure” he says."
@richvn.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.social@floriannaudet.bsky.social, @ploederl.bsky.social and others found the change comes down to whether the meta-analyses happend to include a particular clinical trial on 40 children in Iran from 2006.
This one trial found an unfeasibly huge advantage for Prozac over another antidepressant.
@richvn.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialScientists have repeatedly warned that flawed studies are affecting the results of systematic reviews in medicine and other fields, but it’s rare to find such a clear example, says @floriannaudet.bsky.social .
Read more here: www.nature.com/articles/d41...
@ploederl.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.social🚨 Paper Alert 🚨
Our new study on the impact of a single small zombie trial on fluoxetine's overall efficacy estimation is out.
With great colleagues @floriannaudet.bsky.social @richlyus.bsky.social and Gert van Valkenhoef
🧟♂️🧟♀️🧟
A longer 🧵
(1/n)
@ianhussey.mmmdata.ioReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.social"Systematic reviews are only as credible as the studies they include"
INSPECT-SR was published yesterday, giving concrete guidance on how to exclude untrustworthy studies.
Cochrane's statement: www.cochrane.org/about-us/new...
Article: www.cochrane.org/about-us/new...
Guidance: inspect-sr.com
@peerreviewcongress.bsky.socialReposted by @floriannaudet.bsky.socialHigh-confidence MAs use prospectively reg’d protocols, independent reviewers, high-qual RCTs, w enough events for precise meaningful estimates w consistent effects + heterogeneity that's low or
clinically/statistically explicable
www.thelancet.com/jo...
Harlan M. Krumholz
The Lancet
