you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

how so? this is a method that would work completely offline and without any form of centralization i can imagine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    It's a study with a very low sample size funded by some corporation and with the intention to normalize "digital treatment" similar to BetterHelp. This has red flags front to back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    how is this digital treatment similar to BetterHelp? how would it possibly be bad in factors other than efficacy, like BetterHelp was due to data nightmares and advertising a different mechanism? this isn't even online

    99 is a more than enough sample size if your RCT's Bayes factor is 114 and 15.8 for better efficacy than -control and -regular treatment respectively, which corresponds to "extreme" and "strong evidence" (Lee and Wagenmakers 2013, p. 105; adjusted from Jeffreys, 1961). The Lancet also peer-reviewed the claim "The Bayesian adaptive trial design enabled efficient evaluation with early stopping when convincing evidence was reached (n=99).[2]"

    indeed further testing is needed to establish subgroup effects and improve generalizability but this is already quite promising

  • source
  • parent