Constantin Yves Plessen
@cyplessen.bsky.social
Psychologist & psychometrician investigating the robustness of mental health research. Exploring researcher degrees of freedom in meta-analyses & psychometrics at University of Graz.
This is not a hypothetical question in my case, and I am only slightly embarrassed 😂
December 6, 2024 at 8:46 AM
This is not a hypothetical question in my case, and I am only slightly embarrassed 😂
2/ They even describe it on Pubpeer: “This symbolic document provides an examination of medical malpractice within the field of neurosurgery, utilizing fictional scenarios that draw inspiration from actual cases frequently encountered in this specialty.”
PubPeer - Practice of neurosurgery on Saturn
There are comments on PubPeer for publication: Practice of neurosurgery on Saturn (2024)
pubpeer.com
November 23, 2024 at 11:04 AM
2/ They even describe it on Pubpeer: “This symbolic document provides an examination of medical malpractice within the field of neurosurgery, utilizing fictional scenarios that draw inspiration from actual cases frequently encountered in this specialty.”
1/ Put away your pitchforks—I actually enjoyed the paper. It’s a clever fable set in space, exploring “the various difficulties that impact surgical outcomes.” It creatively contrasts patient-centered, evidence-based medicine with current practices (and future ones on Saturn).
November 23, 2024 at 11:04 AM
1/ Put away your pitchforks—I actually enjoyed the paper. It’s a clever fable set in space, exploring “the various difficulties that impact surgical outcomes.” It creatively contrasts patient-centered, evidence-based medicine with current practices (and future ones on Saturn).
Ever since a reviewer took the time to feedback my R code, highlighted steps that were hard to follow, and reran my analyses on their computer, I do the same when reviewing.
In general: seeing the supplement as an integral part of the paper and not as an afterthought!
In general: seeing the supplement as an integral part of the paper and not as an afterthought!
November 22, 2024 at 9:47 PM
Ever since a reviewer took the time to feedback my R code, highlighted steps that were hard to follow, and reran my analyses on their computer, I do the same when reviewing.
In general: seeing the supplement as an integral part of the paper and not as an afterthought!
In general: seeing the supplement as an integral part of the paper and not as an afterthought!
How to deal with conflicting claims from multiple meta-analyses on the same topic?
Especially regarding: publication bias, state-of-the-art methods—should we apply all or only some corrections?
And what evidential value do meta-analyses of only high-risk-of-bias studies hold?
Especially regarding: publication bias, state-of-the-art methods—should we apply all or only some corrections?
And what evidential value do meta-analyses of only high-risk-of-bias studies hold?
November 22, 2024 at 6:14 PM
How to deal with conflicting claims from multiple meta-analyses on the same topic?
Especially regarding: publication bias, state-of-the-art methods—should we apply all or only some corrections?
And what evidential value do meta-analyses of only high-risk-of-bias studies hold?
Especially regarding: publication bias, state-of-the-art methods—should we apply all or only some corrections?
And what evidential value do meta-analyses of only high-risk-of-bias studies hold?
Our findings confirm that digital interventions can overall help, but outcomes also depend on the design, population, and context.
November 19, 2024 at 11:50 AM
Our findings confirm that digital interventions can overall help, but outcomes also depend on the design, population, and context.
Most included primary studies had a low quality according to Cochran’s Risk of bias tool 2. Smaller effects appeared when adjusting for publication bias and at follow-ups after 24 weeks.
This highlights the need for higher-quality trials and more focus on sustaining long-term benefits.
This highlights the need for higher-quality trials and more focus on sustaining long-term benefits.
November 19, 2024 at 11:50 AM
Most included primary studies had a low quality according to Cochran’s Risk of bias tool 2. Smaller effects appeared when adjusting for publication bias and at follow-ups after 24 weeks.
This highlights the need for higher-quality trials and more focus on sustaining long-term benefits.
This highlights the need for higher-quality trials and more focus on sustaining long-term benefits.