Can you name the author in the example of cherry-picking? I don't see it. Which study was misplaced in the inclusion-exclusion criteria?
-
-
Replying to @EduEngineer @K_Sheldrick
It's not the inclusion criteria, which are basically "chuck all the awful studies into one website". It's just that the authors extract only "positive" results regardless of whether studies actually showed a benefit
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick
You keep conflating "didn't show a benefit" with "wasn't statistically significant", but the latter doesn't make a difference in a binary p-value computation.
2 replies 1 retweet 34 likes -
And your idea of "number wasn't corrected properly" means "awful study" is probably only slightly correlating in reality. I've read a 5-digit number of studies, and I find such mistakes in the majority of them, at every level of clinical quality.
1 reply 0 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @EduEngineer @K_Sheldrick
Yes as I said there are a lot of awful studies. This one is particularly worthless tho, for a number of reasons not limited to the one that you want to ignore for some reason
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick
I'm not ignoring it. I stated that it was worth contacting the author and figuring it out, but before that step, it's not a reason to suggest "worthless".
2 replies 1 retweet 31 likes -
Replying to @EduEngineer @K_Sheldrick
That's one element of quality. It's not even the only thing that I pointed out in this thread. Other issues are the lack of reporting of potential confounders, the inadequate control group, the lack of reporting generally, the contradictions btwn pre-reg and study...
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick
Unless there is a reason to believe confounders skew one direction, magically, missed confounders are understood not to have a significant effect on such computed p-values. In fact, that's the point of a p-value: it only asks the question of whether the results happen at random.
2 replies 0 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @EduEngineer @K_Sheldrick
By definition a confounder skews in one direction, otherwise it does not confound the relationship and is not a confounder
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick
A confounder skews in one direction *internally* to a single study, but those wash out at high numbers of studies/coin flips. What you need are global confounders to make the argument.
3 replies 0 retweets 32 likes
That is very simply incorrect
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.