A good quality systematic review should identify and synthesise all the available evidence, for a particular question, through meta-analysis. Conclusions can then be made about the effect of the intervention on the outcome. As, in theory, all the available evidence is gathered and assessed, surely the conclusions from the meta-analysis must be the truth and […]
Category: archimedes
Explosive!
Well, I thought that was a better title than ‘Volatility’ which, to be fair, is closer to what this meandering post is all about. When we’re struggling our way through medicine, we have to face all sorts of uncertainties. Some of these are the frank face of ignorance (we just don’t know something), some of […]
Why not look at what you already know?
A little while ago we blogged on the surprisingly varied methods folk use to pick how how big an effect needs to be in order to be ‘clinically relevant’. A further paper on this theme has emerged that takes up a slightly different aspect of the challenge of getting the number right before doing a […]
Publication bias.
SO – you all know about publication bias? The fact that nasty, authoritarian Journal Editors, sat with their cigars, expensive brandy and well-roasted coffee look upon trials that don’t give positive results and consign them to the pit of Rejection? (That’s just how it happens.) Well, there’s another variants on this theme. There’s the “we’ll […]
StatsMiniBlog: Spot on, time and again.
“Spot on!” is a rather anachronistic and very Anglophile phrase, redolent of croquet lawns, tweeds and well designed woven straw hats. It’s no wonder we tend to use – if we are being technical – the word “accurate” instead. But should we be using the word “precise” to make ourselves sound all academic? And what’s […]
Routine data vs research expense
Lots of debates could be had off this title. When is an ‘audit’ and audit and when is it a cloaked piece of poor quality retrospective research? Why is ‘research’ considered better just because it’s ‘special’? What makes research study data forms nearly impossible to understand without spending 3 days in a steam hut wearing just a […]
A grain of sand.
I am a glutton for podcasts, occasionally medical, but often way off this mark (sociology, philosophy & rugby league would fall into this category), yet they frequently play into each other. Some of you will recall this, as I note that when I can’t concentrate on a podcast, I know I’m becoming overloaded/over worried and need to step […]
Top tips for detecting adverse events in paediatrics
How can we determine the safety if anything we do in paediatric prescribing? For chronic conditions, we’re generally pretty sure that if we let it wind on, it will harm the child. If we treat it, we’ll be managing the disease but causing adversity. The balance is making this tip where the good stuff overwhelms the […]
Basics. Why bother with systematic reviews?
If you’ve only recently bumped into this blog, you may not be aware of the near-obsessive compulsion for us to ask “Is there a systematic review of that?” at any opportunity. Why is this the case? Well, partly it’s the job. Mostly it’s because systematic reviews give us the best answers to our questions … and […]
How can we share treatment decisions?
I guess part of me wants to start this blog with “Never knowingly topical”, but in the UK an as yet unclear explosion of media interest has been generated around decision making and a child with a brain tumour. Those who want to can find out more via reputable news sites – as a staunch […]