A new literature review is published, experts in the field say it’s terrible.
Important dive into the existing methodologically-sound evidence relevant to policy and practice. https://t.co/zATZu9oiOW — Jocelyn Downie (@jgdownie) November 3, 2022
Important dive into the existing methodologically-sound evidence relevant to policy and practice. https://t.co/zATZu9oiOW
— Jocelyn Downie (@jgdownie) November 3, 2022
I second the suggestion, this time for reasons related to the quality and accuracy of the physiological arguments. There are instances where studies are cited incorrectly, false statements attributed to them. In some, the paper actually concludes the opposite to what is reported. — Ross Tucker (@Scienceofsport) November 4, 2022
I second the suggestion, this time for reasons related to the quality and accuracy of the physiological arguments. There are instances where studies are cited incorrectly, false statements attributed to them. In some, the paper actually concludes the opposite to what is reported.
— Ross Tucker (@Scienceofsport) November 4, 2022
Other than that…
I think it only identifies as important, but it certainly is a dive: a high dive into the shallow end of the pool.
I think it only identifies as important, but it certainly is a dive: a high dive into the shallow end of the pool.