4 ms·

> If the study had continued to get details from all the kids we probably would not have seen an improvement compared to the control group. Why do you assume t

by awb 5y ago

> If the study had continued to get details from all the kids we probably would not have seen an improvement compared to the control group. Why do you assume the control group kids that dropped out would have caused the data to trend in a positive direction? Was there data on why they dropped out?

_-david-_ 5y ago
I am assuming the kids who stopped having the issues would have dropped out at a higher rate. If a kid is having an issue their parents would want them to remain in to help find a treatment for the kid. I am not aware of any data on why kids dropped out, but it does call into question the accuracy of the results. When almost everyone drops out of a study you should start over or make sure you get the reasons why they dropped out so you can figure out if they stopped having the issues.
- Volundr 5y ago
  > I am assuming the kids who stopped having the issues would have dropped out at a higher rate. If a kid is having an issue their parents would want them to remain in to help find a treatment for the kid. This seems like a reasonable theory, but it seems just as likely to me that as things get worse people are more likely to decide this isn't helping and drop out. Which goes to the point of the rest of your comment, the dropout rate calls the whole study into question. Otherwise we are left with guesswork and assumptions.
- awb 5y ago
  > I am assuming the kids who stopped having the issues would have dropped out at a higher rate. Interesting. I suppose that could happen. I guess the opposite might also be true if they dropped out because they didn’t want to wait on therapy any longer and once they started therapy would no longer be allowed to participate in the control group. > When almost everyone drops out of a study you should start over or make sure you get the reasons why they dropped out so you can figure out if they stopped having the issues. Agreed. I’m not sure why the author didn’t lead with this point. This alone seems like a sufficient critique, along with the small sample size.

by awb 5y ago

_-david-_ 5y ago

I am assuming the kids who stopped having the issues would have dropped out at a higher rate. If a kid is having an issue their parents would want them to remain in to help find a treatment for the kid. I am not aware of any data on why kids dropped out, but it does call into question the accuracy of the results. When almost everyone drops out of a study you should start over or make sure you get the reasons why they dropped out so you can figure out if they stopped having the issues.

Volundr 5y ago
> I am assuming the kids who stopped having the issues would have dropped out at a higher rate. If a kid is having an issue their parents would want them to remain in to help find a treatment for the kid. This seems like a reasonable theory, but it seems just as likely to me that as things get worse people are more likely to decide this isn't helping and drop out. Which goes to the point of the rest of your comment, the dropout rate calls the whole study into question. Otherwise we are left with guesswork and assumptions.
awb 5y ago
> I am assuming the kids who stopped having the issues would have dropped out at a higher rate. Interesting. I suppose that could happen. I guess the opposite might also be true if they dropped out because they didn’t want to wait on therapy any longer and once they started therapy would no longer be allowed to participate in the control group. > When almost everyone drops out of a study you should start over or make sure you get the reasons why they dropped out so you can figure out if they stopped having the issues. Agreed. I’m not sure why the author didn’t lead with this point. This alone seems like a sufficient critique, along with the small sample size.