VendorMark said:Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to: Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) —…
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
BethLabQueen said:LipidDoc_ATL said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
VendorMark 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 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.