English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

With the aim of seeking for empiric evidence as to support the hypothesis that smallsize studies analyzed with no explicit operational hypothesis may lead to erroneous conclusions, we carried out an analysis of subgroups resulting from the breakdown of a previous published large study and using on them the same analytical procedures. Methods: The 584 patients from a sample as calculated upon an operational hypothesis whose test results are already published, were grouped in six subgroups 100 individuals each, on whom the same analytical procedures were performed using the same statistical methods. Results: The outcomes showed that half the groups had association statistics in one direction (above one) whereas the other half had it on the opposite (below one). Only one subgroup reached statistical significance (p <0.05). Comments: These results illustrate with empirical evidence that smallsize study groups analyzed with no explicit hypothesis yield inconsistent results, this way supporting the hypothesis that these small-size groups yields do not have the meaning of complete analytical ones and hence, their eventual importance lies only on descriptive grounds.

Grupos de estudio pequeños: una búsqueda de evidencias