In my career so far, I have found only a single RCT so robust that I could not challenge any of its conclusions
-
-
Show this thread
-
The fact is that most good research is actually really messy, because non-messy research is done in a lab and can't be applied to the real world
Show this thread -
This is why proper critical appraisal is so important. If you can't interpret even substantially flawed research correctly, then you aren't doing science well
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Any suggestion on how to.get.better at reading research critically? For lay-people? For beginning scientists?
-
I wrote a six-part series on medium about it https://medium.com/s/journalists-are-wrong-about-health/journalists-are-wrong-about-health-21fc2422153f … Otherwise I'd recommend Bad Science by
@bengoldacre - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Actually do you please have any epi resources or short courses etc for improving skills. I did both epi and stats on my MPH and grad cert in research and indeed I’ve taught stats; it’s one of my strengths. But I feel with epi I could do with knowing just a little more or better..
-
The problem is most of the stuff I write is much to basic for someone who's done an epi course. But the only other resource I can think of is the Cochrane stuff - free, but incredibly dense I'll have a think!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
See also: "Your model is wrong" (Of course it is, it's a model, they're all inaccurate, which one do you prefer, what data do you have that helps us decide which fits it better?) and "You're making assumptions!" (Er, yes, of course? And here they are. Which ones are you making?)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.