Language for communicating frequentist results about treatment effects



Yuck. Not a fan. The only reason I’m not pushing back against it is that I haven’t seen it referenced that much yet, but maybe we need to get ahead of this before it gets too popular.


the MD MPH types like it, it seems. I guess they seek a solution but dont want to read about or master something more sophisticated and time-consuming (forgive me for saying so). I was once asked to review a paper about the fragility index. Suffice to say, the paper was rejected…


i once did a thorough search of the web looking for a more critical view of the fragility index, and came across your blog post. I believe it was the only piece i found though…!


The father of clinical epidemiology Alvan Feinstein proposed a similar fragility approach 25 years ago. I sort of liked it at the time. But it was seldom used.


there is something offensive to me about contemplating: “What would the results be if we obtained data that we did not obtain?” Statisticians who treat data as sacrosanct ought to have a visceral reaction when non-biostatisticians wish to rejig data, treating a patient who is alive as dead and claiming that this is a small change (it is the largest change one could possibly make) and merely insinuating something that was already understood re uncertainty of results


I mainly agree. I do feel that sensitivity analysis is occasionally warranted but I think that more often than not, sensitivity analysis creates doubt and opportunity for inserting opinions that are really motivated by confirmation bias, rather than sticking with a “best principled analysis”.