News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Faecal transplant effectively treats recurrent or unresponsive Clostridium diff. Parent comment

Re:Faecal transplant effectively treats recurrent or unrespo... by cpncrunch on Friday November 24, 2017 @12:10PM (#15771827)
The primary source is the one posted above by elsherbini.

I would definitely trust a small negative placebo controlled trial over a large meta-analysis that didn't include any placebo controlled trials, especially for a treatment that has a 90% placebo responder rate (as the trial posted by elsherbini shows).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Faecal transplant effectively treats recurrent or unrespo... by epmaybe on Saturday November 25, 2017 @08:10PM (#15778921)
But how can you draw a conclusion if you have conflicting results from both placebo controlled studies mentioned? One with a significant difference, and the other without.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Faecal transplant effectively treats recurrent or unrespo... by meowface on Friday November 24, 2017 @12:58PM (#15772069)
Why not publish your own meta-analysis, then? Or if not publish, at least write an amateur meta-analysis?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Faecal transplant effectively treats recurrent or unrespo... by cpncrunch on Friday November 24, 2017 @01:11PM (#15772160)
Because I'm not a scientist. And anyway, the reason they didn't include this is because back in July 2016 when this review was written, there were no published placebo controlled trials. The Kelly trial was only published in Nov 2016. Presumably newer meta analyses will take this into account.
[ Parent | on HN ]