anna.melb_AU said:Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.
pete_nash said:Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
anna.melb_AU 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 anna.melb_AU, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
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. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.