Dr.NephBHM_UK said:Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Dr.AddMedPHL said:Dr.RaviCardio said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Dr.NephBHM_UK said:Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.