Hacker News Reader

Comment by mslt | Hacker News Reader

It did actually happen. Maybe read far enough to justify the snark

I’m surprised they were able to run the study so quickly, what with this study protocol only being published in December of last year. Although I may well be confused about the long timelines between things getting done and things making it into print in this field. Do you have a link to the study’s results?

It reads to me like a sane and effective design, and I’d really be curious how it panned out. Maybe the main link can be updated to refer to the completed study.

Citation needed? The study concluded in Sept 2023 but no results were provided. Are results on these studies usually so delayed? Perhaps they didn’t get the expected result?

Calling it here: mslt, to apologize, you should say "I'm sorry, I didn't read far enough to justify my own snark. That's who screwed up here. I apologize to the poster I lashed out at"

The study did run and conclude: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05155696

Could you tell us what the conclusion was? Because this is the very point of this discussion.

IIUC, the data have been gathered but the results aren't yet published: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05155696?tab=results

I think we're confused because it's a strange stage for bringing the study to our attention.

A few months isn't a long delay for a paper to be published.

(not the poster you're chastising) I read for 5-7 minutes because I thought I might be missing it, couldn't find it.

Help an ADHDer out?

Edit: you sure? Now I read the PDF and reviewer comments too...fyi I'm on mobile. Only thing left i can think of that'd hide it.

The study may have happened since this was first written, but AFAICT the results are still absent, so it's still not newsworthy because there's no real news.

what were the conclusions? I skimmed it but did not see any.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com