BMJ  2007;334:440 (3 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39136.470139.FA

Letters

Randomised trials

The urge to sprinkle statistics is irresistible

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Reading the article by Glasziou et al, we might be forgiven for believing that they had discovered some hitherto unknown method of causal inference.1 Instead, of course, they have merely stumbled across the way in which causes have been identified in everyday life and science throughout history.2

The "mother's kiss" technique for removing a bead lodged in a nostril is an effective treatment not only because it has been shown to work in case reports but also because it is grounded in elementary principles of physics familiar to every child who has played with a pea shooter. It does not need statistical analysis. Yet, the authors—unable to free themselves of the urge to season the data with a sprinkle of relative risks or P values—neglect the fact that the many examples they provide of treatments with clearly observable effects are widely accepted without the need for statistical tricks.

The obsession . . . [Full text of this article]

James Penston

Scunthorpe General Hospital, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire DN15 7BH

james.penston@nlg.nhs.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise
Paul Glasziou, Iain Chalmers, Michael Rawlins, and Peter McCulloch
BMJ 2007 334: 349-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Count me out
Stephen J Senn
bmj.com, 3 Mar 2007 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ