Відео

Wonderfull, thank you so much!

This is the reason why the side effects for Statin were under reported.

Tirzepatide from Eli Lilly

THANK YOU

Omg!! This was perfect thanks!

thank you so much for this video helped me with my journal club!

Michael, the man that you’re!! Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Very informative

Thank you for this lecture it is really helpful

I am a masters student studying social work and even when the focus of the research is different the process of calculating these scores is more or less similar. This video was a great deal of help and extremely digestible, thank you so much!

thank you for this great explanation! Is there also a possibility when having 3 treatment groups to calculate propensity scores with the same strategy?

DB RCT are the best! Thank you for the content! Why should i listen to other trials if they are vulnerable to biases?

Fantastic! Nicest explanation of PSM ever

Thank you so much for making this video!

Great video - well explained

Great video - you made it so easy to understand

Great vid! Would love to see a crash course on Kaplan-Meier/survival analysis

Can you talk about confidence intervals in depth? I’m having a hard time trying to interpret it

thanks, pretty clear

Great, thanks!

Really helpful, I wanted to ask What is the difference between Propensity score matching and Case control matching (SPSS)?

Thanks for the clear explanation!

THANK YOU SO MUCH

genius! deeply appreciate this video! helpful for med students drowned by statistical terms

Hi Michael, Appreciate this breakdown, despite most of it going over my head. When you say these statistical methods do not mimic RCTs, what exactly does that mean? How closely do we get to the results of a RCT using this method, and has this method been verified against the findings of RCTs? The reason I'm asking this is b/c I came across a cohort article comparing adolescents who took antipsychotic medication vs. those who didn't, and compared how they were doing 5 years later. The article suggests, after using IPTW, that antipsychotic medication in those w/ their first episode of psychosis, actually makes for a worse 5 year outcome. I'm skeptical though b/c it's a cohort study and no randomization was done. The authors acknowledge this weakness, and then state that the Stabilized IPTW is used to eliminate the possibility that those with worse psychosis were the ones who were given an antipsychotic medication. (I think this is the most probable explanation for why those who were given AP medication fared worse. . .simply b/c they already were experiencing more profound psychosis and so we would expect them to be doing worse at a 5 year follow-up). Seems super fishy to me. . .any thoughts here are appreciated, thx.

great video!

🤩

Very good lesson except that you are extremely fast. I wish you could slow down your pace

Thank you so much. Plz make more videos especially about meta-analysis

excellent breakdown and synopsis. Thank you.

There are 3 scores as 0.6, would it be fair/unbiased to match with random 2 only?

I learnt so much. Such a good presenter. Thank you!

This lecture coul even solve a particular question... kept rigmaroles coming...

you are so stupid, while giving a lecture, avoid your shit chatting with people

Thanks for the video

Thank you for the video!! saved me when I got totally lost in my intermediate pharmacoepidemiology class 😂

Doing an analysis on a controlled trial you were involved in just feels like cheating. But super helpful video, Thank you!

Great summary. I think the only point that I would have added on patient baseline was highlighting the fatc that all patients were statin intolerant (and they signed a informed consent)

Thank you for uploading

how do you set the 20% margin on the forest plot?

Thank you Dr. Fralick for this video!! Can you please post your talk about everything you need to know about statistics ? Thanks again

Thank you

Thank you dear teacher. Excellent, in spite of it wasn't in Spanish or without subtitles

I cannot emphasize how helpful this lecture is. Thank you for making this available. Topics like these are very hard for me to understand on live face-to-face/online lectures. I need to pause a bit, rewind a bit to catch the concepts. THANK YOU!

Can you please explain the slide at 5:10? Why don't we have the same number of persons, means...? Is it just that we do not take into account people without a match?

Very helpful video for rookies like me😊

One of the best 👍💯

Great lecture Michael! can anyone help me understand how to use the Newcastle Ottawa scale a little better? The questionnaire seems pretty straightforward but I'm not sure if I am interpreting it correctly.

Very informative video😊 I will suggest the channel to my colleagues too

Thank for the concise videos that explain the overall concept very well. It was very easy to understand. There are 3 implementation details during the matching phase (at 5:00) hoping you could clarify. 1. After we get the score, if there are two rows with scores 0.5 in control group (where `SGLT2 = No`), should both of them be matched to row 3 in treatment group? 2. In the real world, the score would rarely be exactly the same if we allow infinite decimal. How do you consider a match? Would there be an arbitrary numeric difference allowed? 3. If there are two rows in treatment with score 9.15 and 9.18 (row A and B), and two rows in control with score 9.16 and 9.25 (row C and D). Would row A and B both be matched to C? Or would row A matched to C as they are have the smallest difference, then row B has to be matched to D?