4 ms·
This is not true at all. Small studies are simply less accurate. Would you prefer to conduct further research on a cure for cancer that's been shown to lead to
by stdbrouw 9y ago
This is not true at all. Small studies are simply less accurate. Would you prefer to conduct further research on a cure for cancer that's been shown to lead to recovery in 0-50% of cases (the confidence interval includes 0%, so not significant) or in .5-1% of cases (significant)?
- Will_Parker 9y agoHow does it make sense to suppose it could lead to recovery in 50% of cases, if a drug that does nothing has a 5% chance of producing the same result in your study?
- stdbrouw 9y agoBecause it has a 95% chance of producing a different (better) result. Statistics is all about the quantification of uncertainty.
- imh 9y agoAs a matter of fact, I can do even better than 0-50% of cases! Consuming widgets has been shown to lead to recovery in 0-100% of cases! It isn't as simple as you suggest.
- stdbrouw 9y agoYep, and that makes widgets a more interesting target for follow-up studies than a treatment that has been shown to result in no clinically significant improvement. It really is that simple.
- Klockan 9y agoSurely we could create a system to fund extensions of studies with promising initial results? I just think that it is dangerous to call 95% significant.