Here's the study. It was looking at a 393-person subset of a larger study, which as I've said is really, really small for this kind of observational trial https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2719576 …
Agreed. A 393-person retrospective cohort study looking at such a biologically problematic outcome is really just a starting point for better research, not something you can make pronouncements about either way
-
-
I am often skeptical of small effects in observation data that is high risk from publication bias. I appreciate stochastic error occurs independent of estimate size, but publication bias does not.
-
hmmm what do you mean by publicaiton bias?
- 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.