Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:1452 (28 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.39619.499583.3A
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
I find it fascinating that surgical treatments and medical treatments are evaluated very differently in the literature and by ethics committees.1 Lets say you told a human research ethics committee (HREC) that you expected only a short to medium term reduction in radicular pain with no real improvement in disability or axial back pain for a drug treatment. You go on to say that treatment had a 70% chance of entrenching the axial back pain as permanent, a 5% chance of worsening the pain, 1% risk of permanent neurological damage, with lesser chances of major vessel damage or paraplegia, I wonder how many HRECs would approve it ? If you then presented a literature search that relied mainly on a 30 year old study with major design flaws and a couple of meta-analyses of poor data you could reasonably expect to be sent packing. By way of comparison, in Australia
Michael Vagg, interventional pain physician
1 VMO Pain Management Unit, Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
mickvagg@yahoo.com.au
Read all Rapid Responses