I think this is a really interesting question. On the one hand, if there are no good studies then we may not have answered the question. On the other, if we ignore pilot/small studies, what's the point of doing them in the first place?
-
-
Show this thread
-
And if we always call for more research, where does that end? Where is the cutoff between not an answer and an answer?
Show this thread -
Also, should note - I'm not saying that calling for no more studies means that we think the question is closed, just that it doesn't seem worth pursuing with more research
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Depends on how plausible the original hypothesis was to begin with.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If the topic was important, the studies would not be small or poorly done. Therefore, no further research needed on an unimportant topic.
-
What about important topics which funding agencies just don’t care to fund, though? E.g. federal governments prioritizing basic science, NIH funding cuts for chronic fatigue syndrome research
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
More studies needed, but only if they are larger/more rigorous otherwise don’t bother?
-
Maybe should justify why the next study wouldn’t suffer from the same weaknesses (or at least how they will be addressed differently)
End of conversation
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.