Tags · Evidence
confounding
A third variable explaining an apparent association.
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
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 ,…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
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…
|
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…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
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…
|
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…
|
+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…
|
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…
|
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…
|
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…
|
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)…
|
2 | 28k | 20mo |