Although there are other problems, those I have repeated here make the recommendations of the report unsafe.
Even if one still believes the bulk of (appropriate) analysis paths still support a recommendation, this sensitivity should be made transparent.
The first statement says HLI’s recommendation is unsafe, but the second implies it is reasonable as long as the sensitivity is clearly explained. I’m grateful to Greg for presenting the analysis paths which lead to SM < GD, but it’s unclear to me how much those paths should be weighted compared to all the other paths which lead to SM > GD.
It’s notable that Cuijpers (who has done more than anyone in the field to account for publication bias and risk of bias) is still confident that psychotherapy is effective.
I was also surprised by the use of ‘unsafe’. Less cost-effective maybe, but ‘unsafe’ implies harm and I haven’t seen any evidence to support that claim.
I’m feeling confused by these two statements:
The first statement says HLI’s recommendation is unsafe, but the second implies it is reasonable as long as the sensitivity is clearly explained. I’m grateful to Greg for presenting the analysis paths which lead to SM < GD, but it’s unclear to me how much those paths should be weighted compared to all the other paths which lead to SM > GD.
It’s notable that Cuijpers (who has done more than anyone in the field to account for publication bias and risk of bias) is still confident that psychotherapy is effective.
I was also surprised by the use of ‘unsafe’. Less cost-effective maybe, but ‘unsafe’ implies harm and I haven’t seen any evidence to support that claim.