> To be precise, the report excluded studies of blockers for not being blinded, in a recreation of the 2003 review of parachute efficiacy No, studies were excl

> To be precise, the report excluded studies of blockers for not being blinded, in a recreation of the 2003 review of parachute efficiacy No, studies were excluded for being of poor quality per their rating on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, which is a tool used to assess the quality of non-randomized studies. You can see the review authors' scoring of each study here: https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669/DC5/embed/inline-supplementary-material-5.pdf https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2024/04/09/ar... Those excluded have a NOS total score of 4 or less and, as this table shows, a score that low is for multiple reasons including not having a representative cohort and inadequacy of follow-up. The review itself can be read here: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20...