Feb 3, 2026 at 2:41 PM#11
NurseAsh_DET said:Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
6 6matt_MKE, Dr.ReproEndo, lucas_SP_BR and 3 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Feb 3, 2026 at 7:01 PM#12
LondonLisa said:Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
Last edited: Feb 4, 2026 at 12:01 AM
5 5ben_calgary, patPC_UT, Dr.DermMIA and 2 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Feb 3, 2026 at 11:21 PM#13
NurseAsh_DET said:Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
4 4maria_elpaso, anders_CPH, Dr.NutriCornell and 1 other
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFeb 4, 2026 at 3:41 AM#14
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Last edited: Feb 4, 2026 at 6:41 AM
3 3emily_PDX, Dr.SleepRoch, laura_annarbor
Reply Quote Save Share Report