pete_nash said:Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Coming at PharmacoVig_BOS’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.