Opiniões de especialistas nem sempre estão corretas

This is a Portuguese translation of the sixth in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 Key Concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims. With thanks to Leonardo Guimarães Fernandes and Cochrane Brazil for the translation.

This blog explains that doctors, researchers, patient organisations and other authorities often disagree about the effects of treatments. It explains why we should not rely on the opinions of experts or other authorities about the effects of treatments, unless they clearly base their opinions on the findings of systematic reviews of fair comparisons of treatments.

Aloittelijan opas kerroinsuhteiden, luottamusvälien ja p-arvojen tulkintaan

A Finnish translation (thank you to Eveliina Ilola) of the nuts and bolts 20 minute tutorial from Tim Hicks: A beginner’s guide to interpreting odds ratios, confidence intervals and p-values.

Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

This is the final blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

Decisions about whether or not to use a treatment should be informed by the balance between the potential benefits and the potential harms, costs and other advantages and disadvantages of the treatment.

How certain is the evidence?

This is the thirty-fifth 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 certainty of the evidence (the extent to which the research provides a good indication of the likely effects of treatments) can affect the treatment decisions people make. For example, someone might decide not to use or to pay for a treatment if the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Do treatment comparisons reflect your circumstances?

This is the thirty-fourth blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

Comparisons designed to evaluate whether a treatment can work under ideal circumstances may not reflect what you can expect under usual circumstances.

O mais novo não é necessariamente melhor

This is a Portuguese translation of the fifth in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 Key Concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims. With thanks to Henrique Pinho Volker and Cochrane Brazil for the translation.

This blog explains that new treatments are often assumed to be better simply because they are new or because they are more expensive. However, they are only very slightly likely to be better than other available treatments.

Are the treatments practical in your setting?

This is the thirty-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.

Are the treatments practical in your setting? Be aware that treatments available to you may be sufficiently different from those in the research studies that the results may not apply to you.

Are you very different from the people studied?

This is the thirty-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.

Are you very different from the people studied? Systematic reviews of studies that only include animals or a selected minority of people may not provide results that are relevant to most people. This may be misleading.

Do the outcomes measured matter to you?

This is the thirty-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.

A systematic review of fair comparisons of treatments should measure outcomes that are important. A fair comparison may not include all outcomes that are relevant to treatments. Patients, professionals and researchers may have different views about which outcomes are important.

Don’t confuse “no evidence of a difference” with “evidence of no difference”

This is the thirtieth blog in a series of 36 blogs explaining 36 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

Systematic reviews sometimes conclude that there is “no evidence of a difference” when there is uncertainty about the difference between two treatments. This is often misinterpreted as meaning that there is “no difference” between the treatments compared.