2 ms·
If you haven't even read it, why would you assume anything about it?
by eivarv 10y ago
If you haven't even read it, why would you assume anything about it?
- mtdewcmu 10y agoI'm not clear on what assumption you are claiming I made. My point was about quality of evidence (see, e.g., [1]). Observational studies are considered lower-quality evidence than randomized trials. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC428525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC428525/
- eivarv 10y agoI see. I was under the impression that you were criticising this study in particular - apropos of assumptions. Sorry.