Number needed to treat as a habit of mind

What helped was somebody explaining confidence intervals to me properly, once, in plain terms, and I have read differently ever since.

Bea, I have been where you are and I would rather say so than stay quiet.

My honest position is that the evidence base for the main compounds is genuinely substantial and the evidence for a great deal else is not.

I would say do read the supplementary material occasionally. Twice now the thing I wanted to know was only in there.

The paper we read last month had a population nothing like most of this circle, which does not make it useless and does limit what it tells us.

That is a kinder way of putting it than I have managed about myself.

My experience is that the group is much better at this than I am alone, because somebody always spots the thing I skimmed.

I found the discussion sections the least reliable part of most papers and the results tables the most.

Building on what Nils wrote rather than answering the original question.

What I would flag is that a study in a different population may not transfer, and that is a limitation rather than a criticism.

Somebody here asked what would change our minds, at the start of a session, and it improved the discussion enormously.

My reading has got slower and better. I get through a quarter of what I used to and I understand considerably more of it.

No wisdom, just: I am sorry. That sounds genuinely hard.