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.
Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses published:
|
|
|||
|
Robert W Leckridge, Locum Consultant Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital G20XQ
Send response to journal:
|
What exactly does it mean to say that a treatment produces a decline in "all-cause mortality by 21%" in a group of patients aged 80 and over? In fact, what does this phrase really mean at all? It's not uncommon to see statements of reduction of mortality from "all causes" in a trial. The implication is that the treated group experienced less deaths than the untreated group. Does this statement mean anything without the time frame attached to it? How long did the treatment postpone deaths from "all causes"? A month? A Year? Forever? This is an important point, because use of this phrase without the time frame attached stops the researchers and the readers asking the question about what the treated group end up dying from as opposed to the untreated group. By focusing too narrowly we fail to clarify for ourselves the true consequences of taking a particular treatment. Everyone dies from something. What are the treated patients MORE likely to die from? We know what they are LESS likely to die from, but don't we know also need to know what they therefore die from instead? Competing interests: None declared |
|||