study 329 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890856709603099   https://content.iospress.com/articles/international-journal-of-risk-and-safety-in-medicine/jrs426   http://www.consort-statement.org https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852589/ COMPARE project http://compare-trials.org/faq

  NICE https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG62 Auscultation of the fetal heart may confirm that the fetus is alive but is unlikely to have any predictive value and routine listening is therefore not recommended. However, when requested by the mother, auscultation of the fetal heart may provide reassurance. Routine Doppler ultrasound should not be used in low‑risk pregnancies. [2008] […]

RCGP Council 1) Transgender module on RCGP website – which has now been withdrawn – my concern is also that the evidence base is lacking for a markedly changed demographic – I felt there was lack of clarity in chair’s blog about the wider issues and governance of evidence in modules more widely. I do […]

https://www.jmir.org/2018/4/e150/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076818761383

DCIS: many breast ‘cancers’ behave benignly – e.g. some 94% survival at 20 years after diagnosis with no symptoms https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2634502 before breast cancer screening only a few percent of all breast cancers diagnosed were DICS after screening introduced – 20-25% of all breast cancers classed as DCIS https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441318/nhsbsp66.pdf very little known about natural history of […]

Claim https://twitter.com/search?q=assocation%20vascular%20access&src=typd (lack of) evidence on shaving for giving birth  clipping is less harmful than shaving  however-  is not clipping better than clipping?: trials that compared clipping with shaving  Six trials, two of which had three comparison arms, (972 participants) compared hair removal (shaving, clipping, or depilatory cream) with no hair removal and found no statistically significant […]

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2008-11-11b.44WS.1 BMJ  2011  http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/59499/1/59499.pdf https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1702 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-health-england-and-drinkaware-launch-drink-free-days https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23061575   https://www.diabetes.org.uk/get_involved/corporate/acknowledgements/britvic-partnership

RCGP Council 24/11/18   1) sponsorship review – This is being revisited. Sam Finnikin and I wrote a letter and asked that it was passed to each Trustee Board member and all officers. In the interests of transparency I have linked to it here. It includes an evaluation of the conference. RCGP Glasgow conference October 2018 […]

relative risks – ace inhibitors https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4209 https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/certain-blood-pressure-drugs-linked-to-increased-risk-of-lung-cancer/ https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(10)01387-9/pdf 3,186 events in 335,135 patients using ACEI (0.95%) 266 events in 29,008 patients using ARB (0.91%)     Control event rate= 0.0091 FOR ARB Experimental event rate=  0.0095 FOR acei ARR =  0.0004 (0.04% absolute risk difference)   whole cohort 7,952 lung cancer events in 992, 061 patients.  […]

For the last 18 years, I have been writing about/protesting about the private screening companies who mislead people into either non evidence based testing, or screening which is already available on the NHS for free. over this time numerous complaints have been upheld by the @ASA_UK , but not the @gmcuk (funny that, since their […]