And, I guess, a more polite version of all this: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 …
-
-
Replying to @generativist
.
@generativist this consensus statement has been a favorite since it came out and I'm glad you shared it here.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DavidKashmer
FYI this entire rant was inspired by reading some RCT stuff that was reported in a way which made judging effect impossible
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist
.
@generativist can you share that work? That way I can add it to my next talk on R^2 in quality improvement work.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidKashmer
The paper in question wasn't an R^2 offender. It reported difference in means between placebo/treatment.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @generativist @DavidKashmer
Even though, each patient had placebo/treatment side. It didn't report within-patient difference i.e. estimate of effect size!
10:30 AM - 10 Sep 2016
from New York, NY
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.