6 ms·
The key sentence most are probably looking for is: > The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not signif
by DarkNova6 2y ago
The key sentence most are probably looking for is:
> The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not significant.
However, the article (and the study) are absolutely worth a read. Another main take-away is:
> I hope you read this paper and think about it every time you read an observational study that finds a positive or negative association between two things. Ask: What if the researchers were as careful as Zeraatkar and colleagues and did multiple different analyses? Would the finding hold up to a series of plausible analytic choices?
- AwaAwa 2y agoThis approach ought to have been codified as part of an oath, with associated repercussions for the breaking of, but instead that which makes for popular sound bites from talking heads will carry the day. What researchers chasing popular beliefs fail to realize is that once you chase popular opinion, your science and therefore you are suspect, not to mention the 'content' was never going to be as popular as the latest bowel movement of modern Ben-Hur. Aesop's fable on the Bat, the Birds and the Beasts comes to mind regarding the fall out of this approach.