My own opinion of that proposal (I’m not sure whether I said this elsewhere) is that the Group is already being done, and better, by things like the Cochrane Collaboration. There is no comparative advantage there.
That was my thought as well, although if this group were formed I’d be extremely interested in how they worked and what their findings were. I’d imagine Bayesian methods would be the norm, which might give them a leg up.
It would be particularly interesting if they consistently disagreed with mainstream systematic reviews.
My own opinion of that proposal (I’m not sure whether I said this elsewhere) is that the Group is already being done, and better, by things like the Cochrane Collaboration. There is no comparative advantage there.
That was my thought as well, although if this group were formed I’d be extremely interested in how they worked and what their findings were. I’d imagine Bayesian methods would be the norm, which might give them a leg up.
It would be particularly interesting if they consistently disagreed with mainstream systematic reviews.