This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
If someone has run well-designed study properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
Marking my uncertainty on well-designed study explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Post #122 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Multiple comparisons: if a paper reports many outcomes, the chance of a spurious association by random chance is real. Pre-specification of primary outcomes matters and secondary analyses are weaker evidence.
Taking well-designed study seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Post #124 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Hold a trial to the standard something could actually have met. A criticism that no achievable design could have answered is a criticism of the field rather than of the paper.
Building on post #127 rather than restating it.
Agreed on well-designed study, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
On post #127 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
I would call the community position on well-designed study likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Measurement error in a self-reported exposure
Measurement error in a self-reported exposure — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reading back through what has been written here about Measurement error, three questions…
|
+23 | 27 | 49k | 3mo |
|
Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate
Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Working notes on selection rather than a conclusion. I would rather post the…
|
2 | 55k | 7mo | |
|
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis — what changed since
On the subject in the title: A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of claim built is wrong? I ask…
|
2 | 2k | 18mo | |
|
Criticising the method without criticising the authors
Criticising the method without criticising the authors Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about criticising the method without criticising in a…
|
+55 | 61 | 60k | 15mo |
|
Critiquing an observational claim about a class effect
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Critiquing an observational claim about a class effect Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about critiquing an observational claim in a thread…
|
2 | 6.9k | 14mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Publication bias detection and its low power
On the subject in the title: Publication bias detection and its low power Working notes rather than a conclusion. Working notes on publication bias detection rather than a conclusion. I would rather post the…
|
2 | 3.2k | 1d | |
|
Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured
Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Something about stability of BPC-157 does not reconcile and I would like a second…
|
2 | 805 | 30d | |
|
Follow-up: A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims
A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about supplier that I did not know to ask the first…
|
+74 | 82 | 2.8k | 6mo |
|
Second pass at: Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor Everything below is what sits behind that. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+75 | 81 | 2k | 2y |
|
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A methods question rather than a substantive…
|
+10 | 14 | 8.4k | 16h |