This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Picking up post #60: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
On SUSTAIN 6, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.
SUSTAIN 6 was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
I had written a reply contradicting post #62 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
What I would check first on SUSTAIN 6 is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
The number people quote for SUSTAIN 6 is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
Post #64 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
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.
On reflection I would soften that slightly.
Taking post #69 at face value and following it one step further.
SUSTAIN 6 came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.
My position on SUSTAIN 6 is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.
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.
Post #73 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Where the SUSTAIN 6 discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
Building on post #73 rather than restating it.
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.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Offering a way to settle SUSTAIN 6 rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Since SUSTAIN 6 keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
Post #78 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Where the SUSTAIN 6 reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
I read post #80 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
What would change my mind on SUSTAIN 6 is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
Coming back to post #84, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for SUSTAIN 6 post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Source for the SUSTAIN 6 figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
I disagree with the framing of SUSTAIN 6 above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.