21–30 of 169 posts
Is it typical for clinical trials to completely miss the point like this? I’d like to read a followup meta-analysis that focuses on the actual physiology — “Parachute use to prevent death … when hitting the ground ”. [shurely some mistake?]
What point is this article trying to make?
This para, buried deep in the paper, is the point: A minor caveat to our findings is that the rate of the primary outcome was substantially lower in this study than was anticipated at the time of its conception and design, which potentially underpowered our ability to detect clinically meaningful differences, as well as important interactions. Although randomized participants had similar characteristics compared with…
Is it typical for clinical trials to completely miss the point like this? I’d like to read a followup meta-analysis that focuses on the actual physiology — “Parachute use to prevent death … when hitting the ground ”. [shurely some mistake?]
What point is this article trying to make?
I suppose an example would be comparing the death rates of people who'd been on a statin drug for a few weeks to those who weren't on the drug at all. You'd probably find no different in morbidity, which might suggest that statins don't do anything.
Is it typical for clinical trials to completely miss the point like this? I’d like to read a followup meta-analysis that focuses on the actual physiology — “Parachute use to prevent death … when hitting the ground ”. [shurely some mistake?]
Is it typical for clinical trials to completely miss the point like this? I’d like to read a followup meta-analysis that focuses on the actual physiology — “Parachute use to prevent death … when hitting the ground ”. [shurely some mistake?]
What do you mean? The point is identifying if parachutes prevent death when jumping from air aircraft, it's in the title!
What point is this article trying to make?
They thoroughly researched the effectiveness of parachutes on a pool of candidates at various speeds and altitudes. While the initial pool of candidates covered a variety of situations, for some reason, the pool of participants willing to actually participate in the study was heavily biased towards people in an aircraft standing still on the airport, with about 60 cm from the door to the ground.
The bias may have been further increased by the selection criteria where participants deemed mentally unfit by the investigator were excluded, and willingness to jump from an airplane at altitude with a 50% chance of an empty backpack increased the likelihood of exclusion.
The bottom half of the right column on page 4 explains how this is relevant for real world studies.
Brilliant.