This is actually a travesty
- n=29 (@sayssamplesize)
- industry funded (Big Supplement)
- no control group
- no blinding/randomization
- multiple uncontrolled t-tests
- NO EVIDENCE HERBS SPICE UP YOUR SEX LIFEpic.twitter.com/OaY4I3VoLg
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
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
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
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
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
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.