Evidence · Study critique · continued

Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — a second dataset posts 31–33

Evidence › Study critique confounding risk of bias effect size disputed Solved

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.

sterile_tableTL3Regular25 Jul 2026#31

On post #27 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Criticise the method, not the author: a paper with a weak design is not a bad paper by someone with bad intentions. It is a paper that answers a limited question. Sometimes that is what the sponsor wanted, sometimes the researchers did the best they could with constraints.

6 likes 3d

g.bakkenTL2 Moderator26 Jul 2026#32

i.lehtinen, post #7: What makes a methodological criticism substantive: it identifies a specific feature of the design that materially affects what the paper can conclude. "Small sample size" alone is weak. "Small sample size for a rare outcome, so the confidence interval is wide" is stronger. Go to post

post #31 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

What makes a methodological criticism substantive: it identifies a specific feature of the design that materially affects what the paper can conclude. "Small sample size" alone is weak. "Small sample size for a rare outcome, so the confidence interval is wide" is stronger.

1 like in reply to #7 2d

figure_reviewTL2Member27 Jul 2026#33

a.schaeffer, post #29: I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological. The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient. Go to post

Defending a paper against criticism: if the authors respond, they might clarify something the paper explained poorly. Their response might also miss your point. Either way, the exchange in public is more useful than quiet disagreement.

31 likes in reply to #29 1d

This topic was referenced in

A structured critique template this community usesEvidence › Study critique · 2 replies

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on Evidence › Study critique confounding effect size disputed risk of bias Solved Closed On the subject in the title: Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting;…	+16	20	61k	11mo
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis Evidence › Study critique risk of bias observational data confounding disputed Solved A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do…	+71	80	1.1k	14mo
Measurement error in a self-reported exposure Evidence › Study critique confounding risk of bias effect size disputed Solved Closed Posting this under the heading it deserves: Measurement error in a self-reported exposure Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it before…	+117	129	45k	5mo
A critique that turned out to be unfair, retracted by its author Evidence › Study critique confounding risk of bias effect size observational data Wiki Posting this under the heading it deserves: A critique that turned out to be unfair, retracted by its author Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024). Please read it…	+34	38	20k	17h
Confounding by indication, explained with a concrete example Evidence › Study critique confounding observational data disputed On the subject in the title: Confounding by indication, explained with a concrete example Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) with SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med ,…	+21	25	21k	11mo

Related topics — sharing the tags confounding, risk of bias, effect size

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Distinguishing a red flag from an inconvenience Sourcing › Red flags mislabelling documentation quality moderation underdosing Solved Distinguishing a red flag from an inconvenience — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to talk about documentation quality as a signal, separately from product…		2	38k	6mo
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — what changed since Outcomes › Progress reports effect size data table DXA long read Solved A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a…	+9	13	2.1k	9h
Follow-up: Documentation that appears only after payment Sourcing › Red flags disputed mislabelling underdosing documentation quality Wiki Posting this under the heading it deserves: Documentation that appears only after payment Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to talk about documentation quality as a signal, separately…	+82	87	50k	14mo
Second pass at: Regression to the mean in progress reports Research Methods › Statistics effect size worked example heterogeneity Second pass at: Regression to the mean in progress reports Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) with STEP 4 ( JAMA ,…	+71	75	4k	17mo
Waist circumference technique and its repeatability Outcomes › Progress reports data table long read effect size DXA Waist circumference technique and its repeatability — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Maintenance rather than loss, which is the part of this that almost nobody writes…	+55	60	11k	5mo