Just a quick reminder that if you have a randomized trial comparing intervention to no intervention & there is non-adherence, your intention-to-treat estimate will be closer to the null than the true intervention effect. Remember this when reading trial results today.
-
-
Possibly but not in a clear easy to define way — this is the effect that would be seen in this population outside the trial *given the exact same adherence level*. In almost all cases, the results of a trial will have some impact (either increasing or decreasing) on adherence.
-
Definitely. You can tell I just published a paper on nonusage attrition and drop-out in clinical trials

- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, efficacy vs effectiveness Nobody would ever dream of giving people with obesity the advice "just eat less" and espect it to work It's been tried and shown to be a bad idea Still, the efficacy of that advice, in a lab with you controlling the person, is 100%
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s a test of asking people to wear masks instead of a test on masks
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Exactly. One of the numerous reasons why the idea of having the general public wear masks is because many people simply won't do it. It's irrelevant if masks work or not if it requires 100% compliance. More public health "experts" should try visiting the real world occasionally
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
In fact, face mask wearing is higher in many places than it was in the DanMask trial. It’s not at all a given that adherence will decrease outside a trial.
End of 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.