It is over 4 mo since the latest LTEs. Editorial office told that they are still waiting a response from the original authors. 4 months to write a 500 word response... Really?
-
-
-
I think they're probably a bit overwhelmed because they didn't realize how wrong they were the first time, and they're either not bothering to reply or not sure how to reply in a way that makes them still feel like they are right.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Are these even random samples?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Somebody had to say it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@learnfromerror and@StatModeling agree on at least one thing!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But a post-hoc calculation of whether or not the study could have recovered a known or theoretical effect size is like a B.L.T.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As opposed to post hoc what?
New conversation -
-
-
It seems like they have a major problem defining the minimal scientific/clinically important difference (worthwhile treatment effect). And they seem to confuse frequentist power wishfully for a Bayesian predictive probability. Shit sandwiches will lead to shit treatments.
#poopThanks. 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.