Journal club: what we got wrong in an earlier session posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
Adding the measurement that post #60 says would settle it.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
Picking up post #64: that is the part I would want checked first.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
On post #67 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Suggest the next paper at the end of the session rather than by message afterwards. The room has just worked out what it wants to know next.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
Post #68 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
I read post #67 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
Post #69 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
A session that ends with a list of what remains unresolved is more useful than one that ends with a verdict. The unresolved list is what feeds the next reading.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
Worth separating two things that post #73 runs together.
Bringing the previous paper on the same question makes the session much better and doubles the preparation. Worth doing every third session rather than every one.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #79 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Suggest the next paper at the end of the session rather than by message afterwards. The room has just worked out what it wants to know next.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.