forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

published: **25/03/21, 12:02**

I would add that it is much more difficult to rig an observational study than a randomized study ... : Mrgreen:

: Randodo.JPG (84.08 KiB) Viewed 3012 times

Authors' conclusions

Our results for all reviews (combined MMR of 1,08) are very similar to the results reported by reviews conducted in a similar manner. Therefore, we got similar conclusions; on average, there is very little evidence indicating significant differences in the estimate of effect between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion studies of pharmacological interventions. Factors other than the study design itself should be considered when exploring the reasons for disagreement between the results of RCTs and observational studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but also level of heterogeneity in meta-analyzes of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence the effects of studies could lead to representative estimates of actual effectiveness.

(Translated) https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/do ... anguage=fr

published: **25/03/21, 12:33**

Hello,

yes ... an Englishman arrives in Calais, observes a red-haired woman, and writes at home: "all French women are red"

yves

published: **25/03/21, 12:48**

Hey Guy !! Aren't you crazy for making a subject like that?

Do you want to kill izydort, ABCDCD and cjamaisimple? : Lol:

Believe more in randomized studies funded by interest groups rather than observing reality without potential conflict of interest ...

Bin is like giving more credit to the studies of a zoo healer than to the observation of a zoologist in nature!

The point is, in this realistic metaphor, caged animals ... that's us!

published: **25/03/21, 13:17**

Hey Guy !! Aren't you crazy for making a subject like that?
Do you want to kill izydort, ABCDCD and cjamaisimple?

It would be a shame! : roll:

published: **25/03/21, 13:26**

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:I would add that it is much more difficult to rig an observational study than a randomized study ...

we do not even know which studies we are talking about !!

Obviously, in some cases, randomized studies are unnecessary, and observational studies may suffice, but randomized studies can never give worse results than observational studies (besides the article does not say that).

In other words, when they do not agree, you have to believe the randomized study, and when the randomized study says that there is no effect, it means that there is no 'effect.

published: **25/03/21, 13:27**

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:I would add that it is much more difficult to rig an observational study than a randomized study ...

it is extremely easy on the contrary, you just have to carefully select the populations that you include in the study.

published: **25/03/21, 14:18**

pedrobac

Obviously in some cases, randomized studies are unnecessary, and observational studies may be sufficient, but randomized studies can never give worse results than observational studies (besides the article does not say that).

Ooh La La! Monsieur de la Palice is reincarnated in PedroABC. Observational studies on breathing, which has thousands of years of history and observations, have given the same result as with randomized studies? This is balèze from balèze

ABC2019 »25/03/21, 14:27

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:
I would add that it is much more difficult to rig an observational study than a randomized study ...
it is extremely easy on the contrary, you just have to carefully select the populations that you include in the study.

difficult to do on the entire population of a country or selection is impossible; except for the cheaters then and you know something about it with your many lies and repeated fakenews.

published: **25/03/21, 14:30**

ABC2019 wrote:
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:I would add that it is much more difficult to rig an observational study than a randomized study ...

it is extremely easy on the contrary, you just have to carefully select the populations that you include in the study.

Blablablablabla .... You have NOTHING left to fuel your lies and your incessant deceit. : Mrgreen:

published: **25/03/21, 14:34**

Janic wrote:pedrobac
Obviously in some cases, randomized studies are unnecessary, and observational studies may be sufficient, but randomized studies can never give worse results than observational studies (besides the article does not say that).
Ooh La La! Monsieur de la Palice is reincarnated in PedroABC. Observational studies on breathing, which has thousands of years of history and observations, have given the same result as with randomized studies?

What randomized studies on breathing are you talking about?
I told you that there was not always a need for randomized studies (no need for example to find that exposure to the Sun gives you sunburn), on the other hand, WHEN you do randomized studies, it cannot mask a result that exists (if it was fun for you to do a randomized study by blindfolding a sample of people and exposing them either to the sun or to a radiator, you would ALSO find that it is well the Sun which gives sunburns).

And since randomized studies (not rigged of course) cannot mask an effect that exists, if they do not see an effect, there is no effect.

you know something about it with your many repeated lies and fakenews.

"mes" fakenews is like scientific references to H. or with dowsing, you take them out each time, but you have never been able to show one.

published: **25/03/21, 14:36**

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:Blablablablabla .... You have NOTHING left to fuel your lies and your incessant deceit.

everyone can see what you have left ... : roll:

forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

Re: The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies