No és la primera vegada que el sento fer males interpretacions de resultats estadístics. Avui no me n'he pogut estar. Podria llegir aquestes dues referències (només per començar): 👉https://t.co/WDlX31dxji 👉https://t.co/F7YRIZTLj3
@RogerSeheult There's legit critique of the evidence pyramid. A given RCT could be junk and a case-control study could be excellent. Assuming one is better than the other simply due to its design type is a common misconception. See Misconception #1 @ htt
2nd. Generalizability refers to the degree to which the results of a study can be applied to a larger population. how he defined his target & study population (sampling theory) & his quest for statistical Vs scientific generalization https://t.co/
@BarryHunt008 Here's my reply, citing an important paper on this issue... https://t.co/U17VUelmtb
@NewsLitProject @DrKatEpi "Misconception 1. There is a hierarchy of study designs; randomized trials provide the greatest validity, followed by cohort studies, with case–control studies being least reliable." https://t.co/G6V6c4WGrl
RT @johnkriby1: @ToshiAkima Part of the problem may be the idea that masks are a "medical intervention." Are seatbelts and bicycle helmets…
@GidMK Here's the point I'm making. An RCT is not by default better than any observational study. [*] The harms of cigarettes were accurately gleaned only by way of observational studies. [*] https://t.co/G6V6c4WGrl https://t.co/6nE2mDQgj7
It is also important to know what a P-value is and also what a 95% CI represents. One of the best papers on this is by @ken_rothman 5/7 https://t.co/ldzYKqa4Du from @JournalGIM https://t.co/pvFzyHVobF
@GidMK Yes. Masks aren't meant to treat any medical condition. They're external safety devices intended to prevent harmful events, as are helmets. Crash-dummy labs are a necessary part of auto-safety science as are mask labs for respiratory safety science.
@JesperKivela @VirginiaBuysse @dgurdasani1 @jvipondmd By saying case-control studies ought to be included, as they once were, I'm not saying RCTs should be excluded. Btw, you cannot infer the quality of a study simply because it's an RCT. A given observat
RT @westr: #1 What can we say about human clinical trials? RT @moorejh: Six Persistent #Research Misconceptions http://t.co/iQ0JmqGPXu
RT @PWGTennant: @Mental_Elf @JacobDiggle @WarrenPearce @Thompson33R Very salient paper: 'Six Persistent Research Misconceptions' https://t.…
RT @statsepi: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions, by Ken Rothman http://t.co/OiLcrY4cvc #OpenAccess
RT @moorejh: Six Persistent #Research Misconceptions http://t.co/BPTVyDlXph #genomics #GWAS #datascience #epidemiology #scichat
RT @JohnnyFoxe: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions http://t.co/4zbFjclXgr #springerlink
RT @health_psycho: Six Persistent #Research #Misconceptions: a must-read for #academics in #health #psychology and other domains https://t.…
RT @JohnMullahy: …or, perhaps, species? Rothman, Six Persistent Research Misconceptions: https://t.co/oz47NAtUlb https://t.co/PHJeDCnaYx
RT @NgoSense: @KevinDKohl See also via @statsepi @ken_rothman Six Persistent Research Misconceptions @SpringerNature https://t.co/QptDBfU…
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
RT @pash22: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions via @ken_rothman https://t.co/EyIaIHirmV
RT @rebeccalacey: Six persistent research misconceptions https://t.co/JbKLI8W3js
RT @johnkriby1: @PriorInfo @ID_ethics Yes. The purpose of RCTs is to reduce bias and a given RCT is only as good as the extent to which it…
RT @PWGTennant: Dear colleagues on #REF2021 panels in medicine/health, Please check you're familiar with these six persistent research mis…
RT @BenJaneFitness: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions (2014) https://t.co/YA8nLepk61 https://t.co/h7YrBaPo6D
RT @johnkriby1: @ToshiAkima Part of the problem may be the idea that masks are a "medical intervention." Are seatbelts and bicycle helmets…
RT @johnkriby1: @ToshiAkima Part of the problem may be the idea that masks are a "medical intervention." Are seatbelts and bicycle helmets…
@ToshiAkima Part of the problem may be the idea that masks are a "medical intervention." Are seatbelts and bicycle helmets medical interventions? Most would say 'no'. But then neither are masks. They are all external safety devices. Myth #1 here is about
@MaryanneDemasi @VPrasadMDMPH @davidemccune @Saikmedi @DrEliDavid @FatEmperor @ID_ethics @andrewbostom @justin_hart @jordanbpeterson @KevinBardosh @toadmeister @DrSyedHaider There's plenty of evidence. Jefferson is an RCT fundamentalist. So he believes the
@PriorInfo @ID_ethics Yes. The purpose of RCTs is to reduce bias and a given RCT is only as good as the extent to which it does that. Many assume any RCT is better than any observational study, but that is not true. Anti-maskers need to learn about misco
@MarchandSurgery @JeromeAdamsMD Human knowledge does not begin and end with RCTs. See misconception #1 @ https://t.co/G6V6c4WGrl
@jljcolorado @WHO @Metadoc An important citation on this matter... https://t.co/YbADoEFpcM
RT @johnkriby1: @Metadoc "Misconception 1. There is a hierarchy of study designs; randomized trials provide the greatest validity, followed…
@Metadoc "Misconception 1. There is a hierarchy of study designs; randomized trials provide the greatest validity, followed by cohort studies, with case–control studies being least reliable." https://t.co/G6V6c5ehiT
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
RT @Alzhacker: 6つの根強い研究上の誤解 https://t.co/aE9K9m8vJ3 無作為化試験は、しばしば研究タイプの「ゴールドスタンダード」と考えられているが、概念的にさえ完璧ではない。さらに、研究結果の比較妥当性が研究の種類から推測できるという前提も間…
RT @Alzhacker: 6つの根強い研究上の誤解 https://t.co/aE9K9m8vJ3 無作為化試験は、しばしば研究タイプの「ゴールドスタンダード」と考えられているが、概念的にさえ完璧ではない。さらに、研究結果の比較妥当性が研究の種類から推測できるという前提も間…
RT @Alzhacker: 6つの根強い研究上の誤解 https://t.co/aE9K9m8vJ3 無作為化試験は、しばしば研究タイプの「ゴールドスタンダード」と考えられているが、概念的にさえ完璧ではない。さらに、研究結果の比較妥当性が研究の種類から推測できるという前提も間…
RT @Alzhacker: 6つの根強い研究上の誤解 https://t.co/aE9K9m8vJ3 無作為化試験は、しばしば研究タイプの「ゴールドスタンダード」と考えられているが、概念的にさえ完璧ではない。さらに、研究結果の比較妥当性が研究の種類から推測できるという前提も間…
6つの根強い研究上の誤解 https://t.co/aE9K9m8vJ3 無作為化試験は、しばしば研究タイプの「ゴールドスタンダード」と考えられているが、概念的にさえ完璧ではない。さらに、研究結果の比較妥当性が研究の種類から推測できるという前提も間違っている。
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
@RWJE_BA @_MiguelHernan Rothmann lo explica bien https://t.co/03Exc9TNdE, aunque parece algo obvio, un mal CT no es necesariamente mejor que un buen observacional.
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
"These misconceptions involve taking the low road, but when that road is crowded with others taking the same path, there may be little reason to question the route. " https://t.co/DW9bauPqHx https://t.co/HkcttgZHv2
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
Six Persistent Research Misconceptions (2014) https://t.co/YA8nLepk61 https://t.co/h7YrBaPo6D
RT @pash22: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/h1EPDX8Jt5 via @ken_rothman
Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/YFlF8tKry7
RT @pash22: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/h1EPDX8Jt5 via @ken_rothman
Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/h1EPDX8Jt5 via @ken_rothman
RT @n_mancuso1: Currently reading @ken_rothman’s paper on persistent research misconceptions for my @EmoryEPI methods class. I really appre…
Currently reading @ken_rothman’s paper on persistent research misconceptions for my @EmoryEPI methods class. I really appreciate having these convos early in my epi training and love seeing the work of my @RTI_Intl colleagues in class! Thanks @EpiPenny
RT @ykamit: エビデンスピラミッドにせよインパクトファクターにせよ、一度そういうのを知ってから弊害を理解するのがいいのか、最初から知らない方がいいのか
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
This is also linked in the thread, but I'll link it here since is a good read HIHI: https://t.co/vSvVj26AcU
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
エビデンスピラミッドにせよインパクトファクターにせよ、一度そういうのを知ってから弊害を理解するのがいいのか、最初から知らない方がいいのか
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/s9j2oHUATX
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/UjnHG9AZY8
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
RT @ykamit: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
Six Persistent Research Misconceptions https://t.co/C3MXYZ0jba https://t.co/ZLhSm694Oy
Love the concept and the open sharing. Lots of learnings for some of us that arent actively working in the field but are curious to learn and often rely on a broad toolset for evidence generation. And what better way to learn than read a few great hand pi
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
To set the scene: Here’s an example of a paper that I personally would like to see make the list: Six Persistent Research Misconceptions by @ken_rothman in Journal of General Internal Medicine 2014. https://t.co/VmxlQZ0wYa
Interesting for a regular person (ie non scientist) to hear that there might be a different ‘gold standard’ than the randomized clinical trial...@MissingMicrobes
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
RT @MeghanAzad: Some very good nuggets in here! #EpiTwitter https://t.co/7p0eyLpoEf
Some very good nuggets in here! #EpiTwitter
A réfléchir et thought provoking. Basé sur https://t.co/cxgMirBFRs
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
RT @statsepi: I was recently reminded by @PWGTennant that the motivation for this was certainly @ken_rothman's excellent essay on common mi…
@sarahRbakerDPH @JDentRes @CDHJournal @DrMuzz57 Observational data including cross-sectional data are absolutely important for public health. I value such data based on one of my bibles by @ken_rothman https://t.co/8dLKZuKdl8 The issue is how to use it.
@frankdevocht @MartinRoosli @blogBRHP @DeborahLawlor2 @mendel_random However, for some causal associations results from different study desings don’t always point in the same direction https://t.co/vUZJUQY5oI
@ErinGillespieMD @Raaginizzle Very good overview. When true risks cannot be estimated, one should not use RR. I also highly recommend another excellent article "Six Persistent Research Misconceptions" by the esteemed Dr. Ken Rothman @ken_rothman https://t
RT @PWGTennant: @dnunan79 I teach that GRADE is an ecological fallacy; every study should be judged individually not according to type. The…
RT @PWGTennant: @dnunan79 I teach that GRADE is an ecological fallacy; every study should be judged individually not according to type. The…
RT @PWGTennant: @dnunan79 I teach that GRADE is an ecological fallacy; every study should be judged individually not according to type. The…
RT @PWGTennant: @dnunan79 I teach that GRADE is an ecological fallacy; every study should be judged individually not according to type. The…
RT @PWGTennant: @dnunan79 I teach that GRADE is an ecological fallacy; every study should be judged individually not according to type. The…
RT @PWGTennant: @dnunan79 I teach that GRADE is an ecological fallacy; every study should be judged individually not according to type. The…
RT @carolynkidman: 科学知識は急速に変化しますが、研究実施の概念と方法はよりゆっくりと変化します。研究の実施に関する時代遅れの考え方の議論を刺激するために、欠陥が明らかになった後も長く続く研究についての6つの誤解を挙げます。誤解は次のとおりです。
As an Epidemiologist, I would suggest this article-written by Dr. @ken_rothman-to those who are doing research or judging others’ research.
RT @carolynkidman: 科学知識は急速に変化しますが、研究実施の概念と方法はよりゆっくりと変化します。研究の実施に関する時代遅れの考え方の議論を刺激するために、欠陥が明らかになった後も長く続く研究についての6つの誤解を挙げます。誤解は次のとおりです。 https:…
RT @seki_yo: [memo] Kenneth J. Rothman "Six Persistent Research Misconceptions" (January 23, 2014) https://t.co/hduKy2R4g9