It does not appear that Consensus considered the two articles I linked above.
I think to make a recommendation like this you really need a systematic meta analysis that can take into account things like study quality and publication bias. That is especially true of an intervention like this which can’t be blinded. I don’t think Consensus is really doing anything like that.
Hmm I think realistically for a lot of topics I cover here those systematic meta analyses won't exist, at least outside of the initial body/mind topics. And given the limited time I can spend on each post it's also not feasible for me. I'll explore the pro features of consensus a bit more, it seems like they are best positioned to do this with AI if it's possible. Me coding up a claude pipeline will be worse for sure. Independent of this I'll see where I can change wording to reflect the evidence without getting too wordy with disclaimers.
PSA: Now is a good time to schedule your flu shot if you live in the northern hemisphere
The claim about gargling seems to have omitted some citations that found null results, which makes me question the analysis and the conclusion.
In this RCT, the garglers actually got sick more:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379705002588
And in this RCT, the results were not significant, though the sample size is small.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/internalmedicine/46/18/46_18_1623/_article/-char/ja/
Thanks! For most research I'm using consensus.app which goes through the most relevant studies and seems to be doing a pretty good job. Links aren't always included, will do more in the future. Here is the analysis for gargling https://consensus.app/search/whats-the-effect-of-gargling-on-health/i-JmyGOYTpy21X8lMQv8iw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=clipboard
It does not appear that Consensus considered the two articles I linked above.
I think to make a recommendation like this you really need a systematic meta analysis that can take into account things like study quality and publication bias. That is especially true of an intervention like this which can’t be blinded. I don’t think Consensus is really doing anything like that.
Hmm I think realistically for a lot of topics I cover here those systematic meta analyses won't exist, at least outside of the initial body/mind topics. And given the limited time I can spend on each post it's also not feasible for me. I'll explore the pro features of consensus a bit more, it seems like they are best positioned to do this with AI if it's possible. Me coding up a claude pipeline will be worse for sure. Independent of this I'll see where I can change wording to reflect the evidence without getting too wordy with disclaimers.
insightful
Thanks for the great article and especially the link to Joey‘s blog. I needed that kick in the a** to finally order an electric toothbrush 🪥
He convinced me as well. Don't regret the switch haha