• FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s a study with a very low sample size funded by some corporation and with the intention to normalize “digital treatment” similar to BetterHelp. This has red flags front to back.

      • Aatube@thriv.socialM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        how is this digital treatment similar to BetterHelp? how would it possibly be bad in factors other than efficacy, like BetterHelp was due to data nightmares and advertising a different mechanism? this isn’t even online

        99 is a more than enough sample size if your RCT’s Bayes factor is 114 and 15.8 for better efficacy than -control and -regular treatment respectively, which corresponds to “extreme” and “strong evidence” (Lee and Wagenmakers 2013, p. 105; adjusted from Jeffreys, 1961). The Lancet also peer-reviewed the claim “The Bayesian adaptive trial design enabled efficient evaluation with early stopping when convincing evidence was reached (n=99).[2]”

        indeed further testing is needed to establish subgroup effects and improve generalizability but this is already quite promising