Important point: something can be "evidence-based" and still not be perfect Arguing that something is not "evidence-based" when it very clearly is merely makes you seem disingenuous and/or ignorant
It's weird, because I sometimes swing either way. On the one hand, you see studies that have found basically nothing being touted as the most amazing thing ever, but you also get really cool, interesting findings ignored because they aren't communicated well enough
-
-
There's definitely an enormous misunderstanding generally about what statistical significance means, and what it doesn't. Similarly with risks/odds ratios and the like. People love figures, even though a lot of the time they're totally meaningless
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.