TrialTracker_MD said:Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
Happy to go further on any of that.
PharmHunterJen said:Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to: Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) —…
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
TrialTracker_MD said:Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.