In episode 162, Mike and James decide to tackle the whole concept of meta-analyses and try their very best to shine a clear light on this important concept. By the end they have brought up so many different valuable points that they decide to add them all together to make their own misleading and deceptive meta-analysis.
I just realised (thanks listeners) that the last podcast posted (Episode 161) was missing Mike’s vocal track. AHHGG. I’ve reposted the podcast and I think the problem is fixed. The irony is at the beginning of the podcast I mention that because of Skype the quaity of Mike’s audio is a little bit off in a few spots. In a case of double irony, many people felt the podcast without Mike’s track was the best one we have done so far. Just kidding Mike 🙂
PLAY/DOWNLOAD THIS PODCAST FOR FREE
In episode 161, James and Mike finally get to the end of a very long series about how do a quick critical appraisal of an RCT. We talk about evaluating the harms found in the study and then discuss how to put the findings into context for an individual patient. At the end we conclude that the only well done and important studies to ever be published are the ones we have done and we leave it at that.
PLAY/DOWNLOAD THIS PODCAST FOR FREE
In episode 160, Mike and James continue to tackle the issue of critical appraisal head on with an even more common-sense approach than the last episode. We talk about ignoring much of the text in the study, how to look at baseline characteristics and how to decipher the information provided in the outcomes table.
Show notes
The ACCORD study
N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2545-59
THE NUTRITION PROPOSITION BOOK
Check it out at nutritionproposition.com and think about picking up a copy on Amazon. All the evidence you ever wanted about nutrition and the only nutrition book that won’t tell you what to eat.
 
