3 ms·

>Would require some checking if they had a preregistration, if this was registered as a secondary resuld and if they had done a proper statistica analysis of mu

>Would require some checking if they had a preregistration, if this was registered as a secondary resuld and if they had done a proper statistica analysis of multiple outocmes. You should do that. Meanwhile, I'm going to (continue to) take a daily vitamin D, because I recognize not everything can be confirmed by a double-blind experiment, and the cost is low.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pella 3y ago
> "I'm going to (continue to) take a daily vitamin D, because I recognize not everything can be confirmed by a double-blind experiment, and the cost is low." Or it may be possible to prove the opposite, as with the parachute. bmj: "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 Results: Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001). "Conclusions: Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice." disclaimer: I am pro-Parachute! I believe 100% in the effectiveness of the parachute!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pella 3y ago

> "I'm going to (continue to) take a daily vitamin D, because I recognize not everything can be confirmed by a double-blind experiment, and the cost is low." Or it may be possible to prove the opposite, as with the parachute. bmj: "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 Results: Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001). "Conclusions: Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice." disclaimer: I am pro-Parachute! I believe 100% in the effectiveness of the parachute!