4 ms·
There is a lot of confusion on how to interpret studies. The reasoning of this article seems to be "The study did not produce a significant result, therefore t
by mg 2y ago
There is a lot of confusion on how to interpret studies.
The reasoning of this article seems to be "The study did not produce a significant result, therefore the treatment is ineffective".
But that is not how to think about significance.
Otherwise, you could show for any treatment that it is ineffective. By simply doing a study small enough to produce an insignificant result.
- loeg 2y agoTrue, but in this case the study sponsor is financially motivated to find a non-null result, not a null result.
- jessriedel 2y agoThis mistake is so unbelievably frequent. Need a concise quip like “correlation isn’t causation”.
- mg 2y agoYes, that might be helpful. First attempt: Insignificant does not mean ineffective Not as good as "correlation isn't causation" though. I wonder if there is a better quip. Or if the concept is too complex to wrap in a catchy statement.
- jessriedel 2y ago“Insignificance isn’t ineffectiveness”