JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHYSIO Archives


PHYSIO Archives

PHYSIO Archives


PHYSIO@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHYSIO Home

PHYSIO Home

PHYSIO  January 2001

PHYSIO January 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: The Myth of Homeostasis (cont'd)

From:

alistair grant <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PHYSIO - for physiotherapists in education and practice <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:01:45 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (174 lines)

Thank you for your patience in attempting to understand the perspectives I
am trying to address. These are difficult yet important concepts which is
one reason why I believe discussing it one the mailbase is important as
opposed to private email correspondence. I am perhaps fortunate in being
able to access the considerable experience of many experts here at Cambridge
such as Professor's Nick Day (WHO Cancer trials) and KT Khaw (who was
schooled by the late Geoffrey Rose in the study of population based
cardiovascular disease) and the many distinguished statisticians from the
MRC Biostatistical Unit. I would hope that debating in this way will assist
other physiotherapists on this list to become more familiar with the
concepts supporting their treatment; an area that I am sure most will agree
is not their particular strength.

Is this important? Well hopefully it will achieve the realisation that such
concepts are integral to the clinical decision making process and cannot be
divorced from it. These concepts are not 'new' (being found in any
intermediate level medical statistical reference) however unfortunately are
not routinely embraced in physiotherapy.

Several important issues require clarification:

1]      Statistical interpretation is central to the clinical decision making
process and so every clinician uses (or abuses?) statistics regardless or
not of whether they realise it. Therefore to be involved in statistics you
do not need to have completed a piece of research which you wish to analyse!
Perhaps the most common application of statistics in a clinical decision
making process is the use of theoretical knowledge and/or clinical
experience to diagnose 'y' when faced with a patient with 'x' symptoms. In
simple terms a frequentist statistician would say that the therapist would
use their knowledge and/or experience to reason that as a given number of
'y' patients have presented with 'x' symptoms previously this is the
probability that the diagnosis is correct. A bayesian statistician would
argue that the therapist would use subjective reasoning to estimate the
probability given 'x' symptoms that the patient has 'y' problem.

2]      Statistical probability modelling is critical in clinical care as if the
wrong diagnosis is made, or a test result is incorrect, inappropriate
treatment will be given. This was discussed in my previous email and is
calculated by sensitivity, specificity and the positive and negative
predictive values. Whilst many clinicians do not realise it they go through
this process, at least in part, every time they make a decision. When it
goes wrong (i.e. sensitivity is low) in 'high risk' treatments (i.e.
surgery) or in cases where error is made (the numerous cases of breast
screening errors reported in the last few years) it makes headline news. The
fact is that 100% sensitivity and specificity are never achieved. I would
hope that in considering ethical principles most physiotherapists would aim
to give the correct diagnosis and/or treatment to their patients (i.e.
maximising sensitivity and specificity using clinical knowledge and
experience). Just because clinicians do not realise they are following this
process does not mean they are not!

3]      The issue therefore is not so much does a particular phenomenon 'exist'
(or is a myth) but how close do we as clinicians come to the 'truth' when we
identify, assess, measure or diagnose it. To assume (or even believe) that
measurement and assessment is 100% accurate is reckless. Remember that when
you assess or even measure a 'thing' you are making an estimate. What you
and ultimately your patients are relying on is whether your estimate is
good. Confidence Intervals are invaluable in assessing this and although the
standard choice of quoting 95% limits (representing +/-1.96 standard
deviations of your estimate) is actually quite arbitrary I am sure you will
find on talking to most statisticians that they now quote Confidence
Intervals in favour of 'p' significance values. Note that this is now also
the policy of the BMJ and related journals.

[NB: This means that if you are assessing or attempting to measure
homeostasis you ARE calculating the likllihood of the events happening
(especially from a Bayesian perspective) and furthermore if you are
attempting to interpret homeostasis as a biological event you already
followed this process. I am not arguing whether something exists or not but
assessing the quality of the estimates (assessment, measurement etc.) that
we then go on and use in decision making or diagnosis]

4]      I agree that precise definitions are important in all types of research.
I happened to use epidemiology as an example as this is the discipline that
uses the most rigorous process of definition (termed case ascertainment)
using a set of standards developed by Sir Austin Bradford Hill. Consequently
the criteria of temporality, strength, dose-response, reversibility,
consistency, biologic plausibility, specificity and analogy are used to
explore the concept of cause and effect associated with the particular
defined phenomenon. I concede that the Britannica definition of homeostasis
is useful for the lay person however strongly disagree that this definition
contains objective measures that may be investigated and tested against a
hypothesis. Thus whilst the Britannica definition is not incorrect, it would
have be rejected as a detailed objective quantifiable statement that could
be tested by a scientific investigation (i.e. it needs a lot more detail!)

5]      Finally, with reference to the blood pressure example you concluded your
email by stating "however we unfortunately produce diagnoses using not only
mmHg numbers like 159 or 161." Ultimately it does not matter how many sets
of measurements we take as the conventional clinical process reduces down to
the dichotomous system I mentioned in my first email and where this debate
appeared to be going astray. That is although we as clinicians conceptualise
the biological phenomena we have assessed or measured down to two options
(patient has a assessed or measured problem so treat 'versus' patient
doesn't have a problem so don't treat) the fundamental problem with this
approach is that it depends on where we place the thresholds for 'disease'.
Thus appreciation that biological phenomena exist as a continuum is crucial
if we are to appreciate the needs of the patient whose systolic BP is
…..157,8 or 9 and 161, 2 and 3…… if the threshold for treatment is a BP of
160. Confidence Intervals are again useful in assessing the need for
intervention in borderline cases such as this in combination with
likelihood, relative and attributible risk which rely on estimation of the
normal population distribution referred to in my previous emails.

NB:- I have not included references as I fear this is already a lengthy
email however I will supply on request.

Alistair Grant
Institute of Public Health
University of Cambridge



>From: "Stanislav A. Korobov" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: PHYSIO - for physiotherapists in education and practice
>    <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The Myth of Homeostasis (for Alistair Grant)
>Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:35:21 +0000
>
>It seems to me (or: I hope) that I have been gradually commencing to
>understand your position. Probably you are currently looking at the
>phenomenon of discussion from mostly statistical point of view joined, as
>that often happens, with the theory of chances (hereof: "the classic bell
>shape distribution", "risk of an event happening", "tossing a coin", etc).
>If so, I was and am quite far away such a look at homeostasis. I take a
>little interest in calculating a likelihood of achieving the homeostasis in
>a given clinical situation or in the mankind population. I am rather
>interested to know whether such a biological phenomenon really exists (is
>not a "myth"). Of course, it would be interesting to know a "quantity of
>homeostasis" in a patient which is sitting near my table ("where is
>he/she -- in the middle of bell curve or somewhere around the tails?"). If
>this is (or: will be) possible, I'll find how to use such data in my
>practice or scientific meditations. However, since we have not yet similar
>quantitative descriptions as to a given organism, it is much for me to know
>that such phenomenon exists (by the way, I think this existance was proved
>by means of statistical methods among other ones).
>
>Regarding the word "relative". I used it exclusively in sense "not full",
>"not absolute". I.e. I did mean an extent of achieving the homeostasis and
>did not mean this word in its statistical sense (relativity of events).
>
>The importance of a precise definition of the phenomena under investigation
>is crucial to the quality of the research process not only in
>epidemiological research. It is related to any research. As to the
>Encyclopaedia Britannica's definition of homeostasis and other similar
>general definitions, they are very important as from at least two points of
>view: (1) they reflect a result of thousands of observations and
>conclusions
>(by the way -- using statistical approaches too); (2) they are milestones
>of
>scientific development, they attract investigators' attention to new
>subjects and issues, they are ski-jumps of future discoveries (sorry for
>this pathetics; I definitely dislike pathetics but the the item is too
>general and important simultaneously).
>
>And why you deem that the Britannica's definition is "not objective"?
>
>Your point about continuum as a form of existing biological processes is
>greatly essential, I think. This mathematical notion seems to be helping to
>understand and explain any phenomenon taking into account that the object
>has a non-discrete character with regards to its time and space variables.
>
>As to your blood pressure example, you are obviously right. However we
>fortunately produce diagnoses using not only mmHg numbers like 159 or 161.
>
>Stanislav A. Korobov, MD, PhD
>Physician-Physiotherapist
>P.O.Box 7, Odessa, 65089, Ukraine
>[log in to unmask]

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
December 2023
October 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
December 2022
October 2022
September 2022
May 2022
December 2021
November 2021
August 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
September 2020
July 2020
April 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager