,
2-15 Confidence intervals should be reported,
Browse Key Concepts
Back to Library- Claims: are they justified?
- 1-1 Treatments can harm
- 1-2 Anecdotes are unreliable evidence
- 1-3 Association is not the same as causation
- 1-4 Common practice is not always evidence-based
- 1-5 Newer is not necessarily better
- 1-6 Expert opinion is not always right
- 1-7 Beware of conflicting interests
- 1-8 More is not necessarily better
- 1-9 Earlier is not necessarily better
- 1-10 Hope may lead to unrealistic expectations
- 1-11 Explanations about how treatments work can be wrong
- 1-12 Dramatic treatment effects are rare
- Comparisons: are they fair and reliable?
- 2-1 Treatments should be compared fairly
- 2-2 Comparison groups should be similar
- 2-3 Peoples’ outcomes should be analyzed in their original groups
- 2-4 Comparison groups should be treated equally
- 2-5 People should not know which treatment they get
- 2-6 Peoples’ outcomes should be assessed similarly
- 2-7 All should be followed up
- 2-8 Consider all of the relevant fair comparisons
- 2-9 Reviews of fair comparisons should be systematic
- 2-10 All fair comparisons and outcomes should be reported
- 2-11 Subgroup analyses may be misleading
- 2-12 Relative measures of effects can be misleading
- 2-13 Average measures of effects can be misleading
- 2-14 Fair comparisons with few people or outcome events can be misleading
- 2-15 Confidence intervals should be reported
- 2-16 Don’t confuse “statistical significance” with “importance”
- 2-17 Don’t confuse “no evidence” with “no effect”
- Choices: making informed choices