Out this morning, TARGET a guideline to help get target trial emulation studies to report a standard set of items

#prc10
@peerreviewcongress.bsky.social
@bmj.com
@societyforepi.bsky.social

That NEJM published this by these two clowns should make the journal a pariah among scientists. I don’t care what their official position is, they are liars and grifters and the worst of the medical community. Shame on the NEJM.

Include information about your DAG somewhere in the publication to let researchers and editors see what you were assuming. If you're feeling cheeky, include code that helped you assemble the DAG (I'm looking at you Dagitty) to make it easier on your readers to recreate the DAG for their use.

Next is to identify all the variables that directly cause the exposure, outcome or selection into your cohort of interest. These is ideally led by subject matter experts and this will likely benefit from discussion and iteration. Next identify the relationships between variables.

DAGs can be useful for identifying all sorts of biases, such as confounding, collider bias, adjustment for mediators (overadjustment), and areas where a sensitivity analysis may be needed. DAGs can help determine what variables may be needed which analyses may be challenging due to intractable bias.

TBH this view never gets old.

We meet again Piccadilly line.

Got love these casual typos.

I feel seen.

The bayesians are insufferable #episky #statsky

Pocock BMJ 1985, can't believe we are still grappling with this.

Spotted near Cary NC. :-O