61–70 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not shameful, it’s how evidence based medicine works. One case is interesting but not a basis for changing a protocol by itself. Tons of things could have influenced the outcome and you need a proper study to know that.
Though it could certainly inspire such a study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though it could certainly inspire such a study.
Sure, but someone needs to fund, organize, and conduct the study. If you're not at a research hospital it's not as easy for a one off case to generate a study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazing. And shameful (for them.)
> And shameful (for them.) 1. A single positive outcome with N=1 should generally not be the basis for making a medical recommendation. 2. It takes a mountain of research work to go from that to a study that you can draw meaningful conclusions from. 3. The hospital is not in the business of doing research, it's in the business of treating patients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but someone needs to fund, organize, and conduct the study. If you're not at a research hospital it's not as easy for a one off case to generate a study.
This is a fairly innocuous change the doctor should be organizing on their own to publish a pilot study. In terms of funding very little would be required since you’re just making a small adjustment to when an existing drug regimen is happening which you already isn’t a controlled factor requiring FDA oversight or anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazing. And shameful (for them.)
It’s not shameful, it’s how evidence based medicine works. One case is interesting but not a basis for changing a protocol by itself. Tons of things could have influenced the outcome and you need a proper study to know that.
There are many things that are simply uncertain and “untrue until proven otherwise” isn’t an exclusively optimal policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And shameful (for them.) 1. A single positive outcome with N=1 should generally not be the basis for making a medical recommendation. 2. It takes a mountain of research work to go from that to a study that you can draw meaningful conclusions from. 3. The hospital is not in the business of doing research, it's in the business of treating patients.
Regarding 3: Shouldn’t the medical system be optimizing for patient outcomes rather than the business their in? Regarding the first two: I think the anecdote being from 1995 suggests there would have been time to put together said mountain of research. I’m not agreeing that this is shameful for the original doctor, but I do think it’s shameful if avenues for potential research are not taken because it’s inconvenient…
But cost is also important to patients. Or it would be in any universe that made sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And shameful (for them.) 1. A single positive outcome with N=1 should generally not be the basis for making a medical recommendation. 2. It takes a mountain of research work to go from that to a study that you can draw meaningful conclusions from. 3. The hospital is not in the business of doing research, it's in the business of treating patients.
I agree n=1 generally isn’t enough, but something like this is easily something you ask for volunteers for as an experiment. There’s 0 risk, you’re taking the same drug. The only reason a given time is selected anyway is for administrative ease not because there’s medical requirements.