Tom Jesson

@thomas_jesson

MSK, pain, realizing I cannot actually learn kung fu

Vrijeme pridruživanja: ožujak 2015.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @thomas_jesson

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @thomas_jesson

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    4. kol 2019.

    Gonna listen back to this now and tweet out some links and pictures to go with it

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. 31. sij

    Congrats to all those stumbling over the finishing line in the . I er... consciously uncoupled mid month... I have a few of your videos saved to review!

    Poništi
  3. 28. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    20. sij

    A number of your so called 'occult' radicular presentations in clinc this month🤔. Nothing like subverting your clincal reasong 😬😬😬

    Poništi
  5. 17. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 17. sij

    This guy has a foot drop from spinal surgery and is wearing an AFO! 😲

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    16. sij

    ⁩ I love how you have merged English literature into physiotherapy!communication is what separates humans from all animal species, complex, collaborative and skilled

    Poništi
  8. 17. sij

    Thread of cool postures over the decades 🦙

    Poništi
  9. 16. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij
    Odgovor korisnicima

    Generally, I think shifting the focus away from "effect" and "no effect" would help. Effects vary in magnitude, consistency, etc. Few are 0, many are relatively small, others are larger, and they'll vary from person-to-person.

    Poništi
  11. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij

    Can’t say enough good things about this episode with ⁦⁩ and ⁦⁩. Thank you both for a novel (for me) and inspiring episode. Book purchased & I can’t wait to dig in!

    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij
    Odgovor korisnicima

    Since we don't know whether the null hypothesis is true, we cannot say that differences "occurred due to chance." One could say the observed effect is likely not meaningful, but it need not be 0. Statistics is about quantifying uncertainty; not transmuting it into certainty.

    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Yes, to conclude no effect because p > 0.05 or because the observed effect is not "practically meaningful" is plain wrong. There can be practical equivalence, but "no effect" implies the effect is *exactly* zero. IMO, it's exceedingly rare that this language is appropriate.

    Poništi
  14. 15. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 15. sij

    I am a conservative and tend to think such difference likely not clinically significant for most and maybe exaggerated by trial bias, but to write "no effect" is just wrong, no?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 15. sij

    I was just reading a trial today that found 1.1 diff in VAS btwn groups but because the CI overlapped 0 (by 0.1) they concluded "no effect", even wrote it in the title of the paper...

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 15. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 15. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 15. sij

    I am a conservative and tend to think such a difference not clinically relevant for most, and likely some of it is bias too - but to say "no effect" is just wrong, no?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 15. sij

    I was just reading a trial today that found 1 point mean difference in VAS btwn two groups but because CI overlapped 0 (by 0.1) authors concluded "no effect" of rx, even put it in the title.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  21. 15. sij

    An overwhelming NO. I feel sorry for LinkedIn now 😬

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·