Started this morning and already overthinking everything

hans_munich said:

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…

Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Dr.BariatricHTX said:

Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to: Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) —…

That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

hans_munich said:

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…

I read this differently from hans_munich, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. Carry on.