Please be advised that @graemeleehickey and others are more expert than I am in the direct, real-world application of such models, but here I am, so whatever. Read it, or don’t.
Sep 26, 2018 • 31 tweets • 5 min read
(THREAD) As requested/discussed yesterday, here are a few thoughts on post-hoc power
It is not uncommon for reviewers to ask for a “post hoc power” calculation. The most common reasons people ask about this are:
Sep 21, 2018 • 48 tweets • 9 min read
I've been a mere spectator to the Wansink scandal, but I think the cautionary tale is worth amplifying across the fields of statistics, medicine & the entire research community. Thus far, the discussion *seems* mostly confined to psychology researchers & some statisticians.
I think it’s important to spread this story across all research for those who may not be aware i) what has happened and ii) why it’s a big deal.
Sep 13, 2018 • 50 tweets • 7 min read
(THREAD)
A few months ago, the Annals of Medicine published a controversial piece titled “Why all randomized controlled trials produce biased results.” Topic: not a bad idea - we should examine trials carefully. Execution: left something to be desired.
We have penned a reply that covered some of the most problematic misstatements, with helpful input from @coachabebe, @GSCollins, and @f2harrell
Sep 12, 2018 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
While I am generally a fan of Ioannidis' & believe he raises valid points here & elsewhere, this piece is more than a little ironic. As of September 12, 2018, he has authored 58 papers published this year (and it's no fluke - 2017: 64, 2016: 78, 2015: 74, etc...)
I do think the article raises some valid points about authorship, and I have certainly seen abuses (in both directions: undeserved authorships granted to people barely involved in the work, and screwjobs that denied people who deserved an authorship their appropriate credit)
(THREAD) There seems to be some...I'll call it tension between trialists and critics that occasionally burbles up on Twitter. As someone that kinda-sorta sits on both side of this fence, I have a few thoughts.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @THilalMD view original on Twitter
1) I agree with the statement that you don't have to be a trialist to critique a trial. You do need to know what you're talking about, but you don't have to "be a trialist" to have methods/statistical knowledge that allows you to comment on trials.
May 24, 2018 • 29 tweets • 7 min read
This article calls for a TWEETORIAL (h/t to the clever @boback and @ihtanboga for catching this and posting about it)
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @NEJM view original on Twitter
Each of them independently noticed a curiosity: this trial was stopped early for futility despite early results suggesting a (possible) strong benefit of the treatment.
Apr 30, 2018 • 76 tweets • 12 min read
OK, folks. Let’s all sit down for a quick chat about this article the “Annals of Medicine” coughed up a few weeks ago about RCT’s: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
This will be my longest TWEETORIAL yet, but that’s because we have a LOT to talk about here
Apr 17, 2018 • 43 tweets • 8 min read
Going to attempt my first TWEETORIAL (h/t @ProfDFrancis, @venkmurthy, @VinayPrasad82 and others) about an innovative clinical trial & how it may be useful in making RCT’s pragmatic, fleet & adaptable
Some shiny objects to get everyone’s attention: Bayesian adaptive-enrichment design and how it might help resolve the #RCT4Impella controversy
