This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
I had written a reply contradicting post #60 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Picking up post #65: that is the part I would want checked first.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
I read post #70 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
Taking post #73 at face value and following it one step further.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
Coming back to post #73, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.
Post #73 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.
Everything in post #80 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
The arithmetic in post #86 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.
Where I part company with post #88, and it is a narrow parting.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.