Astral Codex Ten

Cochrane Review

4 min read

Cochrane Review

Article

Cochrane Review is a recurring publication in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 3 times across 3 issues between April 13, 2022 and May 10, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as “A 2012 Cochrane Review examined these and other studies”; “Cochrane review apparently showing masks didn’t work”; “Continuing discussion around the Cochrane review apparently showing masks didn’t work”. It most often appears alongside California, CDC, Cremieux.

Metadata

  • Category: Publications
  • Mention count: 3
  • Issue count: 3
  • First seen: April 13, 2022
  • Last seen: May 10, 2024

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Obscure Pregnancy Interventions: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
April 13, 2022 · Original source
In terms of cerclage, we reserve this intervention for the women at highest risk of preterm birth (usually history of preterm delivery <34 weeks and other criteria because of the high risk of complications associated. You have anesthetic complications, risk of membrane rupture, bleeding, even risk of fetal death. Overall it can actually be helpful in preventing preterm birth but only in high risk women. This is the relevant Cochrane review. It’s a fairly major procedure and should not be undertaken lightly.
Inline links: Overall it can actually be helpful in preventing preterm birth but only in high risk women. This is the relevant Cochrane review
A 2012 Cochrane Review examined these and other studies and concluded there was no role for abdominal decompression in normal pregnancy, although it might be helpful for certain rare conditions associated with elevated abdominal pressure.
Inline links: 2012 Cochrane Review
Links For March 2023
March 10, 2023 · Original source
16: Continuing discussion around the Cochrane review apparently showing masks didn’t work. I agree with Kelsey’s analysis here (see also continuing Twitter discussion of Kelsey’s analysis). I don’t agree as much with Tomas Pueyo’s analysis here, for the reasons GidMK lays out here. I also stand by what I said in last month’s links (see #45)
Inline links: the Cochrane review apparently showing, Kelsey’s analysis here, continuing Twitter discussion, Tomas Pueyo’s analysis here, GidMK lays out here, last month’s links
Highlights From The Comments On Hanson And Health Care
May 10, 2024 · Original source
Every study on the marginal effect of medicine has some way it operationalizes “marginal medicine” for the purpose of that study. In geographic variation studies, it is the medicine done in places that spend more on medicine, but not in places that spend less. For studies that compare large to small hospitals, it is the treatments done in large but not small hospitals. For experiments that vary the price of medicine or insurance, it is the medicine chosen by subjects who faced lower prices, but not chosen by those who faced higher prices. I remember at some point also suggesting using treatments with a lower Cochrane Review rating.
Inline links: Cochrane Review
Ask about a treatment’s Cochrane Review rating,