Maybe go deeper. Bet you a million dollars you’re looking at selection biases, short study duration, confounding factors, poorly attributed causality, major patient contact, encouragement during study.
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Reluctance to publish negative results affects pretty much all journals. Singling out one for it seems a bit biased.
-
For sure. Impacts every field! I just happen to be working on this topic (and so, so, so much hype!). Plus, as noted, some interesting work on mindfulness bias... Don't mean to imply unique to this journal.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Would you like to see the so called reviews of a systematic review paper that shows school based mindfulness programs do not have evidence for effective impact and should not be endorsed for use?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That’s a maligned review technique we used to call ‘counting noses’. Not good for a number of reasons. The focus should be on parameter estimation using meta-analytic techniques.
-
The problem with meta-analysis is garbage in- garbage out
- Show replies
New 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.