More on the BCMA AHRQ Report

I commented on a report by AHRQ on BCMA already in this post.  It does nothing to bolster the BCMA evidence.

Now on further examination the references are even more embarrassing than first thought.  Thanks to Brent Fox at Auburn that noticed this.  Check these sets of references in the report:

• 2, 16, 26
• 6 and 27
• 8 and 18
• 9 and 19
• 10 and 20
• 11 and 21
• 12 and 22
• 13, 14, 23, 24

Must be getting paid by the references.  More references = more credibility? Not.  Very disappointing from AHRQ, whose publications are usually first rate.