New comment on @PubPeer in response to what looks like a fundamental mistake in reporting: https://pubpeer.com/publications/8707546729362DAAED6FF4D6E7395E#1 …
-
Show this thread
-
"primary outcome variables were all treated as continuous"pic.twitter.com/bEljTLH7RN
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
-
"Here are some more odds ratios"pic.twitter.com/nncI3bQ8dz
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
"Here are some more odds ratios"pic.twitter.com/OAKsy96vCr
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
"Here are even more odds ratios"pic.twitter.com/xN6bXyN6sE
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
This could be a simple labeling cockup (e.g. these aren't actually "odds ratios" but were mistakenly labeled as such), or the authors have actually done the wrong analysis for their entire paper (probably by mistake, but still...come on)
6 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @ADAlthousePhD @PubPeer
What if the opposite is true - they meant to say everything was treated as categorical?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
All of the scales they used as outcomes are continuous variables, I think, though could be wrong about that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Just dichotomized everything tho, I hear it's the best way to stats
-
-
Dichotomizing continous variables is one of those things you cant unsee when you’ve learnt how wrong it is. Now I see it everywhere, and it annoys me immensely.pic.twitter.com/YJ02Yrl0Cv
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. 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.