3 ms·

It does tell you something. But that kind of sample size is arguably underpowered for anything but a preliminary study. It's the statistical equivalent of Hubbl

It does tell you something. But that kind of sample size is arguably underpowered for anything but a preliminary study. It's the statistical equivalent of Hubble before it had its corrective optics installed: still fine for seeing big unsubtle things like whether parachutes are warranted when jumping from airplanes, but unable to resolve all the details you want to know before concluding that a medication is safe and effective.

dsr_ 1y ago
It's worse than that, because: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were screened for participation. 23 agreed to be enrolled and were randomized. Intervention Jumping from an aircraft (airplane or helicopter) with a parachute versus an empty backpack (unblinded). Main outcome measures Composite of death or major traumatic injury (defined by an Injury Severity Score over 15) upon impact with the ground measured immediately after landing. ... go read it to find out what happened. No, really.
- buttercraft 1y ago
  What the... Is this some sort of joke I'm not getting? "The participants who did ultimately enroll, agreed with the knowledge that the aircraft were stationary and on the ground."
  - bunderbunder 1y ago
    It's gently reminding medical researchers not to forget about participation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_bias). Another favorite of mine along these lines is "Cigarette smoking: an underused tool in high-performance endurance training". (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3001541/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3001541/) This one might actually be quite pertinent in this case, because the FDA's decision appears to rely heavily on exactly the kind of reasoning that this article satirizes.
  - jfengel 1y ago
    It's a multilayered joke. There's an old joke about the lack of randomized controlled trials for parachutes. The joke is deployed when people complain about the lack of formal studies for things whose benefit is obvious. Then somebody went ahead and did it, just to be funny. But you can't actually do a randomized controlled trial on parachutes, so you get a third layer of joke, about studies that don't actually prove anything.
    - BrandoElFollito 1y ago
      As a side note, I've seen it mentioned when discussing the common question of "why no parachutes on commercial flights?". The question has relatively simple answers and it's sometimes used in risk management discussions to explain threat models.

dsr_ 1y ago

It's worse than that, because: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were screened for participation. 23 agreed to be enrolled and were randomized. Intervention Jumping from an aircraft (airplane or helicopter) with a parachute versus an empty backpack (unblinded). Main outcome measures Composite of death or major traumatic injury (defined by an Injury Severity Score over 15) upon impact with the ground measured immediately after landing. ... go read it to find out what happened. No, really.

buttercraft 1y ago
What the... Is this some sort of joke I'm not getting? "The participants who did ultimately enroll, agreed with the knowledge that the aircraft were stationary and on the ground."
- bunderbunder 1y ago
  It's gently reminding medical researchers not to forget about participation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_bias). Another favorite of mine along these lines is "Cigarette smoking: an underused tool in high-performance endurance training". (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3001541/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3001541/) This one might actually be quite pertinent in this case, because the FDA's decision appears to rely heavily on exactly the kind of reasoning that this article satirizes.
- jfengel 1y ago
  It's a multilayered joke. There's an old joke about the lack of randomized controlled trials for parachutes. The joke is deployed when people complain about the lack of formal studies for things whose benefit is obvious. Then somebody went ahead and did it, just to be funny. But you can't actually do a randomized controlled trial on parachutes, so you get a third layer of joke, about studies that don't actually prove anything.
  - BrandoElFollito 1y ago
    As a side note, I've seen it mentioned when discussing the common question of "why no parachutes on commercial flights?". The question has relatively simple answers and it's sometimes used in risk management discussions to explain threat models.