We give treatment with clear evidence that it does'nt work to a great number of patients...
With statins the NNT to prevent a cardiac event varies up to 200+ depending on the study. It has been proposed that we should also looka the the NTN (number-treated-needlessly) i.e. those not benefitting from treatment - which in the example above NNT = 1 in 200 NTN = 199...
*************************************************************************************
Prof. Tim Reynolds,
Queen's Hospital,
Belvedere Rd,
Burton-on-Trent,
Staffordshire,
DE13 0RB
work tel: 01283 511511 ext. 4035
work fax: 01283 593064
work email: [log in to unmask]
home email: [log in to unmask]
**************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s)named above and may contain information that is confidential privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, though the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn there is no hidden message revealed by reading this backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Macroshaft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this eMail in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph WATINE
Sent: 11 October 2006 10:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: fallacious argument?
one of you wrote, a few days ago, that the lack of evidence for the effect
of an intervention is not equal to evidence that the intervention has no
effect
isn't this kind of argument a little bit fallacious?
wouldn't some patients, health-professionals, or tax-payers, find it hard to
swallow that interventions with no proven benefits (but with proven costs or
side effects) are recommended by our profession?
Dr Joseph Watine, hôpital de Rodez, France
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical community working in clinical biochemistry. Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are responsible for all message content. ACB Web Site http://www.acb.org.uk List Archives http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.) http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|