About the Datasets category

Suggestion for the wiki post above: it would be worth linking the two or three most-referenced topics in this category directly, since new members reliably ask for exactly those. Happy to make the edit myself if nobody objects, with a revision note.

Using data in discussions: datasets are useful as reference points when someone claims something unusual. "I have not seen that reported in the data" is different from "that is impossible", but data gives you something to say.

I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.

Combining data from different sources: datasets from this site are not directly comparable to published trials because the populations are different. They are worth reading separately, not merged together.

Community-collected datasets: some members have compiled datasets from their own experience and shared them. They are self-reported, unblinded, and therefore limited as evidence. But they show real patterns that people experience.

Post #9 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Aggregating first-hand accounts does not produce evidence of the kind a trial produces. It produces a description of who chose to post, which is a real thing and a different thing.

It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.