Follow-up question - is a Cohen's d of 1.9 the sort of thing that you'd expect reviewers to take into account when assessing the study in a systematic review?
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wow it was so good it treated 3 people who were just neighbours of the person taking ivermectin
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1.9 eh? Well, hallelujah the pandemic is OVER! Oh wait, no a 1.9 Cohen's d is clearly the excrement of something that should be treated with ivermectin.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would you mind dumbing it down for me? Genuinely interested — politicians in the Philippines are recommending it at giving it away willy nilly.
-
Wikipedia has a rule of thumb for Cohens D that might help you:pic.twitter.com/xGrUhTgmq0
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would linking the study hurt those who sponsor exclusively vaccines? Why do you analyze a study you hesitate to link?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If I must, I'll take off my epi hat and put on my MD hat: the problem is that physicians aren't used to seeing or judging Cohen's d as an effect size estimator in clinical trials (I know, I know). If it had been translated into something grokable they might have caught it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So a Cohens d of almost 2 is a HUGE effect size. You mean that it is highly unlikely?
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.
