MASHdoc_SA said:

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…

Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.

quinn_sf said:

Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

MASHdoc_SA said:

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…

I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.