-
-
Show this thread
-
Also, I'm not sure how this slipped through the cracks of peer review, but the article declares no funding despite: a) the pre-reg indicating industry funding b) ONE OF THE AUTHORS EMPLOYED DIRECTLY BY INDUSTRY FUNDERS
@BMC_seriespic.twitter.com/RfNUe9kLbL
Show this thread -
Honestly, not too much to dig into here, no point in a long thread There's literally nothing you can take away from a 29-person uncontrolled, unblinded, poorly-analyzed study except perhaps that the scientists should do a better one
Show this thread -
And I actually kinda feel bad for the Daily Mail because if you didn't know that statistical significance is often a red herring it might seem important that there was a 'significant' difference in sexual function And the reporter actually read the paper!pic.twitter.com/JwGEZyxMZA
Show this thread -
In reality, regression to the mean basically guarantees that you'd see some statistical improvement if you take 29 women, measure them on dozens of factors, and give them a pill that they are told will help their sex lives
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not to mention, who gets to define the threshold for "sexual dysfunction"?
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.