Timeline for Is Rule of Three inappropriate in some cases?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aug 9, 2023 at 22:03 | comment | added | Michael Lew | @Whuber I agree. However, it is my opinion that telling people to use a method that works only in some circumstances is less optimal than telling them to use a method that always works. People who are not focussed on statistics tend to get confused about the conditions necessary for methods to be reliable and therefore ignore them. | |
Aug 9, 2023 at 13:43 | comment | added | whuber♦ | The "even in non-zero cases" is the key, because (of course!) it applies only to when the outcome is a count of zero. Because that is theoretically justified (and works well, IMO), the distinction between a correct and an incorrect application of the rule is a crucial one. | |
Aug 8, 2023 at 21:25 | comment | added | Michael Lew | Well, the conclusion is that the rule of three should not be preferred to other methods for any reason other than being trivially calculable. The fact that clinicians use it as a default even with non-zero cases is to be discouraged. If I recall correctly, we suggested that Wilson's scores intervals were preferable among the standard methods, but any other than the Wald intervals are OK. (Sorry about the paywall. I don't any more have a copy myself, and my university turned off my library and email after I retired after 29 years.) | |
Aug 7, 2023 at 22:23 | comment | added | whuber♦ | The abstract is unclear: it seems to admit the rule of three works just fine in the cases where it's supposed to be applied, namely "the initial complication rate is zero." Since this is behind a paywall and you are a co-author, I would like to invite you to take this opportunity to elaborate on this conclusion and clarify what it actually says. | |
Aug 7, 2023 at 22:04 | history | answered | Michael Lew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |