[rrsp]

Does anyone know if there’s a reason why we’ve not agreed on a standard way of analysing data for any given type of study or type of outcome?

Maybe it’s naive but my intuition would be that if someone were conducting a randomised control trial with a hypothesis that A > B then there should be a known best practice for analysing that data to check the hypothesis. A way that is reproducible, otherwise surely it’ll become a shitfest of people trying multiple methods of analysis and then publishing whichever produced the ‘best’ result.