The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Tags · Evidence

confounding

A third variable explaining an apparent association.

48 topics 19 solved Group: Evidence

Related in this group: STEP programme · SURMOUNT programme · SURPASS programme · SELECT trial · FLOW trial · SOUL trial · TRIUMPH programme · PIONEER programme · SUSTAIN programme · LEADER trial · randomised trial · meta-analysis

48 topics · page 2 of 2

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Confounding by indication, explained with a concrete example
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 ,…
TVARBDSBCD+21 25 21k 11mo
Immortal time bias in a claims-database study
Immortal time bias in a claims-database study — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited in support of a claim I do not think it…
MACDSOIDNN+29 34 28k 11mo
Why most self-reports here are not experiments, and that is fine
Why most self-reports here are not experiments, and that is fine — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I have seen SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in…
SBSKGF 2 46k 11mo
Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables
Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) with SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024) and finding…
JATNNA 2 60k 11mo
About the Datasets category
Community-collected datasets, their collection methods, and their limitations. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a…
BNOFSVPSAA+6 11 42k 12mo
Regression to the mean in progress reports
On the subject in the title: Regression to the mean in progress reports Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before posting; the discussion…
HAAMTFAVDM+30 34 49k 12mo
Whether an aggregate is worth publishing at all: a disputed topic
On the subject in the title: Whether an aggregate is worth publishing at all: a disputed topic Working notes rather than a conclusion. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it…
PEGLIGHNMD+20 24 18k 13mo
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis
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…
ASKHMIASNP+71 80 1.1k 14mo
Pre-registering a personal experiment, seriously
Pre-registering a personal experiment, seriously — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021) with SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) and finding the…
PADAVSSJL+96 119 58k 14mo
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021). Please…
JSJISTGBM+39 44 632 14mo
Critiquing an observational claim about a class effect
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Critiquing an observational claim about a class effect Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015). Please read it before…
VRRIJV 2 6.9k 14mo
Coming back to: A critique that turned out to be unfair, retracted by its author
A critique that turned out to be unfair, retracted by its author — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021) cited in support of a claim I do not…
IAQLJB 2 1.3k 14mo
Criticising the method without criticising the authors
Criticising the method without criticising the authors Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in support of a claim…
KBZOKOJMTV+55 61 60k 15mo
About the Study critique category
Structured criticism of a specific published study. Criticise the method, not the author. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
BNJNDEHF 4 114 16mo
Contributing data without breaching anyone's privacy — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Contributing data without breaching anyone's privacy — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a…
RIMSBJ 2 58k 17mo
Second pass at: Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) cited in support…
KFFFRM 2 12k 18mo
Sample size intuition for a personal experiment
On the subject in the title: Sample size intuition for a personal experiment Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting; the discussion is…
RKHECAHTT 4 62k 18mo
A well-designed study with a badly written abstract — does this still hold?
A well-designed study with a badly written abstract — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Comparing STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021)…
ENCEKA 2 28k 20mo