Having seen this plot, are you more or less confident in the statement that IBS is associated with pet ownership?
-
-
But bringing this back to
#scicomm - how is a journalist meant to know this? It's complex stuff. Most scientists I know aren't comfortable re-running a meta-analysis to see what happens when you exclude studiesShow this thread -
And the press release, let's remember, is astonishingly positive. No mention of the MASSIVE question mark remaining after this research, just "pet owners more likely to have IBS"
Show this thread -
The real finding from this analysis is that there may be a very modest increase in risk of IBS from owning a pet, but this seems unlikely at present based on the totality of the evidence
Show this thread -
Who do we blame for the misreporting? I'll leave that to you There are many steps along the way that could've corrected this, but none were taken
Show this thread -
SMALL CORRECTION The forest plot I included earlier in the analysis of the random-effects model was from the log-transformed variables (oops) here's the plot once exponentiated:pic.twitter.com/Me4zJfoI6w
Show this thread -
Also, the p-value is 0.064 for this model, which is technically not significant. The effect size is also different from that reported in the abstract, however if I run a fixed effects model everything is exactly the same so I suspect that's what was actually done here
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wait... What???
-
Yeh look, their CI didn't cross 0, but if you re-calculate the results using a random-effects model p=0.064. I think it's fair to still report this as technically "significant", but it's not a strong result
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.
