4 ms·

N=19 is a very small sample size. I would be careful forming opinions based on this study.

jessaustin 9y ago
Yes it is much better to enjoy psilocybin oneself.
pizza 9y ago
even if it were e.g. sixteen or seventeen, for all of them to report lessened depression a week after is a fairly strong finding, at least enough to merit someone else attempting to reproduce the research. present depression medication barely works better than placebo
- xzel 9y ago
  Yes. I think if you put you and your parent comment together it forms a good synthesis of how to approach the results of this study.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > present depression medication barely works better than placebo That depends on quite a few things, and so far none of the psilocybin treatments are controlling for those. It's possible (likely, even) that if psilocybin is approved for treatment and used as often as other meds we'll see effectiveness plummet.
anythingnonidin 9y ago
Please read 'A Prevalent Misconception About Sample Size, Statistical Significance, and Clinical Importance' http://www.joponline.org/doi/abs/10.1902/jop.1972.43.3.181?journalCode=jop http://www.joponline.org/doi/abs/10.1902/jop.1972.43.3.181?j...
- cJ0th 9y ago
  Perhaps I am a bit dense but I still don't see why small sample sizes aren't problematic. If the data source we tap is valid (i.e.: it does give us the information that we really need) then we need a big sample size to gain precision. If, otoh, the data is not valid in the first place then neither a small nor a big sample size are helpful.
  - jonex 9y ago
    Sample size is relevant to which opinions to form. But I think the GP wanted to point out that just having a small sample size does not invalidate the results of a study given equal confidence scores. It's a common misconception that the conclusions of a large study always are more trustworthy than from a small study. A larger study will however be able to detect smaller effects and will, as you mention, provide more precision.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
    The issue is effect size. If the effect is large or easily detected, then you don't need many individuals to determine significant differences in the broader population. What you seem to be referring to is whether or not a sample is representative of a population, which is indeed a critical factor in statistics, but not really related to the issue here.

Yes it is much better to enjoy psilocybin oneself.

even if it were e.g. sixteen or seventeen, for all of them to report lessened depression a week after is a fairly strong finding, at least enough to merit someone else attempting to reproduce the research. present depression medication barely works better than placebo

xzel 9y ago
Yes. I think if you put you and your parent comment together it forms a good synthesis of how to approach the results of this study.
DanBC 9y ago
> present depression medication barely works better than placebo That depends on quite a few things, and so far none of the psilocybin treatments are controlling for those. It's possible (likely, even) that if psilocybin is approved for treatment and used as often as other meds we'll see effectiveness plummet.

anythingnonidin 9y ago

Please read 'A Prevalent Misconception About Sample Size, Statistical Significance, and Clinical Importance' http://www.joponline.org/doi/abs/10.1902/jop.1972.43.3.181?journalCode=jop http://www.joponline.org/doi/abs/10.1902/jop.1972.43.3.181?j...

cJ0th 9y ago
Perhaps I am a bit dense but I still don't see why small sample sizes aren't problematic. If the data source we tap is valid (i.e.: it does give us the information that we really need) then we need a big sample size to gain precision. If, otoh, the data is not valid in the first place then neither a small nor a big sample size are helpful.
- jonex 9y ago
  Sample size is relevant to which opinions to form. But I think the GP wanted to point out that just having a small sample size does not invalidate the results of a study given equal confidence scores. It's a common misconception that the conclusions of a large study always are more trustworthy than from a small study. A larger study will however be able to detect smaller effects and will, as you mention, provide more precision.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
  The issue is effect size. If the effect is large or easily detected, then you don't need many individuals to determine significant differences in the broader population. What you seem to be referring to is whether or not a sample is representative of a population, which is indeed a critical factor in statistics, but not really related to the issue here.