Beware of conflicting interests

This is the seventh in a series of 34 blogs explaining 34 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

This blog discusses how people with an interest in promoting a treatment (in addition to wanting to help people), such as making money, may promote treatments by exaggerating benefits and ignoring potential harmful effects. Conversely, people may be opposed to a treatment for a range of reasons, such as cultural practices.

Expert opinion is not always right

This is the sixth in a series of 34 blogs explaining 34 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

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.

Newer is not necessarily better

This is the fifth in a series of 34 blogs explaining 34 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

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.

Common practice is not always evidence-based

This is the fourth in a series of 34 blogs explaining 34 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

This blog explains that treatments that have not been properly evaluated but are widely used or have been used for a long time are often assumed to work. Sometimes, however, they may be unsafe or of doubtful benefit.

Blinding: A detailed guide for students

This blog provides a detailed overview of the concept of ‘blinding’ in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It covers what blinding is, common methods of blinding, why blinding is important, and what researchers might do when blinding is not possible. It also explains the concept of allocation concealment.

Association is not the same as causation

This is the third in a series of 34 blogs explaining 34 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

This blog explains that the fact that a treatment outcome (i.e. a potential benefit or harm) is associated with a treatment does not mean that the treatment caused the outcome.

Anecdotes are unreliable evidence

This is the second in a series of 34 blogs explaining 34 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

This blog explains that claims about the effects of a treatment may be misleading if they are based on stories about how a treatment helped individual people, or if those stories attribute improvements to treatments that have not been assessed in systematic reviews of fair comparisons.

Treatments can harm

This is the first in a series of 34 blogs explaining 34 key concepts we need to be able to understand to think critically about treatment claims.

This blog explains that people often exaggerate the benefits of treatments and ignore or downplay potential harms. However, few effective treatments are 100% safe.
Implication: Always consider the possibility that a treatment may have harmful effects.

Key Concepts for Assessing Treatment Claims: A New Blog Series

Introducing a new series of 36 blogs from Students 4 Best Evidence. This series is based on a list of 36 ‘Key Concepts’ developed by an Informed Health Choices project team. These 36 ‘Key Concepts’ are things we need to understand to appraise treatment claims.