TinaHashiRN said:Dr.AddMedPHL said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
SandraNC_45 said:Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to: Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) —…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
TinaHashiRN said:Dr.AddMedPHL said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.