Skip to main content
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