where to start?!!!
vested interests is a good one - Journalists should ask WHY am I reading this PRESS RELEASE produced by WHO and what might their INTERESTS BE? (the journaslists' job is to either ask good questions or lazily turn it into copy)
why not talk to a group whose mission is to equip the public and the press in asking for evidence? Sense about science have got some great resources, and if you identify top 3 clinical epidemiological errors, do consider getting them to work on a publication http://www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php
Susan Bewley
________________________________________
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 11 March 2012 13:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: keep 'em coming...RE: Top 3 (or so) essential clinical epi concepts
G'day! Thanks to everyone who's responded to the list, or to me directly - please keep answering, and I'll feedback down the line what accumulates.
Hilda
________________________________________
From: Rod Jackson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Top 3 (or so) essential clinical epi concepts
The number 1 problem in RCTs is random error, while the number 1 problem in non randomised studies is confounding.
regards
Rod Jackson
On 11/03/2012, at 7:03, "Fell Greg" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Ecological fallacy
Ineffective comparator
External validity
Greg
Greg Fell
07957 144899
From: Tom Jefferson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 05:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Top 3 (or so) essential clinical epi concepts
1. Your doctor has been "informed" on the drug either by reading an industry sponsored article in a professional journal or by professional salesmen. Ask him/her.
2. Beware of experts
3. Beware of governments on public health matters.
On 10 March 2012 18:34, Michael Power <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I would suggest "Statistical significance says nothing about risk of bias"
for your top 3
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Bastian, Hilda
(NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
Sent: 10 March 2012 16:25
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Top 3 (or so) essential clinical epi concepts
G'day!
I'm working on a list of top 3 (with top 5 and top 10 too) basic concepts
patients, journalists & clinicians need not to understand to protect
themselves from the data/health claims that commonly mislead. Would really
appreciate thoughts & all personal favourite lists like this.
At the moment my personal list goes like this:
1. Correlation vs causation
2. Relative risks without context
3. Increasing survival rates vs increasing length of life
Thoughts/resources gratefully received. (Have a great weekend!)
Many thanks!
Hilda
--
Dr Tom Jefferson
Scientific Editor PLoS ONE
Reviewer, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group
tel 0039 3292025051
________________________________
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential information, copyright material or views/opinions that do not necessarily reflect those of Bradford and Airedale teaching Primary Care Trust. If you receive this email by mistake please advise the sender immediately. All should be aware that this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and that emails may be monitored.....
|