This blog is a critical appraisal of a randomized control trial (RCT) looking at the effect of Physiotherapy on shoulder function in patients surgically treated for breast cancer.
This is the twenty-ninth blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.
“Statistical significance” is often confused with “importance”. The cut-off for considering a result as statistically significant is arbitrary, and statistically non-significant results can be either informative or inconclusive.
This is the twenty-eighth blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.
The confidence interval is the range within which the ‘true difference’ is likely to lie, after taking into account the play of chance. Whenever possible, consider confidence intervals when assessing estimates of treatment effects. Do not be misled by p-values.
This blog is a critical appraisal of a randomized control trial (RCT) looking at the effectiveness of acupuncture for low back pain.
This blog is a critical appraisal of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing the effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain.
Blinding is a common element used in rigorously designed trials. Most people are familiar with the general concept but what is its purpose and what is the best way to perform it? This blog by Neelam Khan explores both of these questions and discusses ways to tackle situations where blinding cannot be done.
This is the twenty-third blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.
Many fair comparisons never get published, and outcomes are sometimes left out. Those that do get published are more likely to report favourable results. As a consequence, reliance on published reports sometimes results in the beneficial effects of treatments being overestimated and the adverse effects being underestimated.
This blog by Saul looks at the Audit Cycle: What is an audit, how does it differ from research, the steps involved in the audit process and how you can get involved.
This is the twenty-second blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.
Even though a comparison of treatments has been published in a prestigious journal, it may not be a fair comparison and the results may not be reliable. Peer review (assessment of a study by others working in the same field) does not guarantee that published studies are reliable. Assessments vary and may not be systematic.
This is the twenty-first blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.
Reviews that do not use systematic methods may result in biased or imprecise estimates of the effects of treatments because the selection of studies for inclusion may be biased or the methods may result in some studies not being found. In addition, the appraisal of some studies may be biased, or the synthesis of the results of the selected studies may be inadequate or inappropriate.
Saul Crandon provides an overview of Case-control and Cohort studies: what are they, how are they different, and what are the pros and cons you need to consider in each study design.
In this blog, Leonardo provides 5 interpretations that you should consider when you read or hear about a reported association in observational studies.
This is the nineteenth blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.
People in treatment comparisons who are not followed up to the end of the study may have worse outcomes than those who are followed up. For example, they may have dropped out because the treatment was not working or because of side effects. If those people are excluded, the findings of the study may be misleading.
This blog provides a detailed overview of the Delphi Technique, a method of congregating expert opinion through a series of iterative questionnaires, with a goal of coming to a group consensus. It covers what it is, the process involved, pros and cons and when you would consider using it.
This is the eighteenth blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.
If an outcome is measured differently in two comparison groups, differences in that outcome may be due to how the outcome was measured rather than because of the treatment received by people in each group. For example, if outcome assessors believe that a particular treatment works and they know which patients have received that treatment, they may be more likely to observe better outcomes in those who have received the treatment.