|
|
|
|
|
|
by JamesBarney
1347 days ago
|
|
|
Participation is a confounding variable if you compare the subset of invitation group that participated with the control group instead of the invitation to the control group. That's the whole reason they use intent to treat. Lifelong correlational data is not the gold standard for questions about mortality. It's intent to treat RCTs. |
|
|
I believe that's what I said. That's certainly what was used. You can't compare the group subset that didn't participate, so it's a confounding variable.
> Lifelong correlational data is not the gold standard for questions about mortality.
AFAIK it is and has been over the last century. If you aren't tracking lifelong data, your mortality data is always skewed against hidden results because you didn't want to wait. When making a paper that isn't qualified (decade long effects vs effects), it's not expected to have short time-boxed data.