Simon Fitsall wrote:
> > Like Mark I too am often confused by all the statistics and wonder how some of it > > can enter my practice.
Much of the statistics are presented confusingly. For example, in
graphs which don't say anything and don't allow you to extract data from
them; in trials where the drop out rate is greater than 50% and then
don't
report on which group they were in; trials which don't report on
patients they randomised. I think what I'm getting at is any confusion
is not all yours. Trialist's and Journals print articles which are
confusing, (albeit some are improving)
(snip)
> > (By the way I don't think I've discussed RCTs with you).
My apologises, I thought we had discussed this on the psychiatric nurse
mailing list.
> > What I'm looking for is something that can tell me that a particular
> > interaction I have with a patient as a nurse is beneficial or not.
> > This could be while chatting privately, while playing pool, watching
> > t.v., anything. I'm not a therapist or specialist in anything, I work
> > as a nurse.
If only the information existed in away that it was that informative.
Clinical judgement is still the most potent process that informs our
practice. Certainly the comment that when we start using 95% confidence
intervals and NNT in our research, we will then be able to see the
applicability of techniques to Mental health nursing. A lot of time can
also be saved by looking in the Cochrane Library if you are looking for
information on efficacy, as most ot the trials in there have already
been identifieed as being pertinent to their subject area. Mind you,
that only applies to areas where trials have been done on efficacy of
intervention.
> > Maybe it's time I got my hands dirty at research to test some ideas
> > out.
>
Your more than welcome to get involved in a systematic review of a
clinical question if you want, here at the Schizophrenia Group.
With every best wish,
Mark Fenton.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|