Dr.SportsMedIN said:

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

dan_philly said:

Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Following on from dan_philly — and this may be the naive question:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. No action needed from anybody.