3 ms·
>The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected
by greenhatman 5y ago
>The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected in the sites
Okay, but there are basically no studies showing no or negative effects. Except for ones with massive p-values. You'd think there would at least be a few showing no effect.
- gus_massa 5y agoTake a look at hcqmeta, specially the RCT parte. You will see: * A lot of small trials that are perhaps not even statically significant and show some positive effect. * A few very large trials that show essentially no effect. Very small trials are easy to organize, and if it fails people gets disappointed and forget to write it down, or the journal reject it because it shows (almost) no effect. So there is a lot of filtration. Very large trials are difficult to organize, so they must publish the final result somewhere to ensure they can fill all paperwork. Also it's large enough to be interesting for the journal. So there is less filtration.