|
|
|
|
|
by zug_zug
96 days ago
|
|
Edit: Okay, I've read the meta-study now and I think the summary article isn't representing the picture very well. In particular they found for anxiety there actually seems to be evidence in this exact data set that does help. What they are doing is saying "there isn't 95% evidence it reduces anxiety" therefore "no evidence" even though they mean "some evidence, just not at the statistical significance level" -- it's one of the biggest confusions (and sometimes it feels deliberate) you'll see people do. Also when you have a confidence interval that big it's a red flag. They themselves admit the data is all over the place. In summary, don't assume much from the title of the summary article. |
|
It's really easy to convince yourself that something works when it doesn't, that's the whole reason why people have to take statistical significance seriously. Maybe it really does work and a really good study could shrink the error bars but that's more hope than anything.