> Note well. This is for clinical research. My own experience is that there is much constant questioning about published clinical research. In addition, decis

> Note well. This is for clinical research. My own experience is that there is much constant questioning about published clinical research. In addition, decision-making of clinicians based on clinical research is tempered with other considerations, sometimes quite complex. Stephen Paulker commented in response to the original paper: "From the perspective of an epidemiologist or a statistician, the relevant question is whether the study's hypothesis is true - i.e., is the probability of H1 greater than 0.5. For clinicians and their patients, the relevant question is whether a particular strategy should be followed in an individual patient or a subset of similar patients. That decision (or recommendation to the patient) will depend on the pre-study likelihood of benefit in that patient and on the relative magnitude of benefits and risks of that strategy, if the diagnosis in that patient is uncertain. For many such decisions, the "more likely true than false" criterion may not be the best decision rule. For serious diseases and treatments of only modest risk, post-study probabilities of considerably less than 0.5 may be sufficient to justify treatment."