5 ms·

I've got some friends who do medical research, and from what they say, "translational research" (getting the latest research into the hands of the doctors actua

by calebm 11y ago

I've got some friends who do medical research, and from what they say, "translational research" (getting the latest research into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine) is a HUGE problem. I have been advised that if I (or a family member) ever gets some medical condition, that if I do a few hours of reading up on the latest research on that condition, chances are that I will be better informed on that condition than my GP.

tertius 11y ago
Probably, but your ability to process the information is severely limited to someone who has be trained on how to do so. And I'm not saying that your doctor has been trained to do so.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  My faith in Doctors is pretty much at an all time low. I kept having bouts of extreme pain with really strange symptoms, Doc's said Reflux but I kept saying it didn't fit the pattern, a dozen AE (ER) visits later and I got a Doc who told me to insist on an MRI. Turns out I have Syringomyelia, a serious and rare spinal condition which the radiologist spotted by accident as it was on the edge of the scan, he then did a bunch more images and they saw the syrinx. The next doc I saw I needed an endoscopy and they said the results where abnormal, so I looked into the condition, when I went to see the gastro doc I asked him if the cells where "high" or "low" grade dysplasia and his snarled response "Oh, trying to be a doctor eh", "no, just trying to be an informed patient". I requested a different gastro doc after that, I read everything I could get my hands on and I'm not stupid, I understand my condition well enough to ask good questions at least. So yeah, not a massive fan of Docs at the moment.
  - tertius 11y ago
    I can relate to this. I feel that the chasm between the lay person and the MD has widened tremendously in our lifetimes (I'm in my 30s). This also, unfortunately has made the average patient be almost completely uninformed. They demand medication to cure their, self-inflicted, ills, or try to diagnose through Web MD. I for one will educate my children and will continue to educate myself to not require an MD on every occasion. But I know that I'm not an MD and I was not trained to diagnose. I'm glad you found doctors who could give you a correct diagnosis that you can lean on to help you through your own search for the truth. I feel this is the best solution at the end of the day, for patients and doctors to be partners. * My dad is an MD and my wife is a biological scientist which really puts me at an advantage.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
coldtea 11y ago
>I've got some friends who do medical research, and from what they say, "translational research" (getting the latest research into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine) is a HUGE problem. That's a good thing too. Unless the "latest research" actual distills down to common practice, it's usually unproven junk, even if it managed to get published in "peer reviewed journals". In fact several meta-studies have found over 80% of the papers that are published in such journals are wrong and/or non-reproducible. As for research results that made it to Nature or similar pop science magazines those are usually even more journalistic than scientific. Think of a research "getting into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine" as a filtering process to weed out the BS. Here's how it works: A team of some inexperienced postgraduates hastily follow some idea tossed around by a professor who doesn't really follow their progress or care that much, but who'll gladly slap his/hers name on the final paper. If there's a need to secure grants, the paper will tackle some important topic and better have good results. In the way, they make one or more methodological errors, and finally send their paper to some journal. The journal editor might be friends or exchange favors to the professor, and will do what he cans to get favorable reviewers, anonymous or "anonymous". Not that the reviewers will go into much bother checking it out, unless the paper is evidently crap. After its published, some pop science journalistic hack will cover it in the cliched "breakthrough story" format, also giving a full portrait of the professor as a restless scientific maverick (even though he merely signed the paper). The editor will then slap a blockbuster-like title to the story, and readers will enthuse about the possibilities. Several months/years later, 3-4 other papers will tear down that one, and the cycle continues. Though sometimes wrong papers manage to get cited for decades without anyone bothering to redo and verify the original research.
- tertius 11y ago
  > In fact several meta-studies have found over 80% of the papers that are published in such journals are wrong and/or non-reproducible. And are you able to interpret these studies to see their flaws? What I would focus on more is to look at something called Retraction Watch. > As for research results that made it to Nature or similar pop science magazines those are usually even more journalistic than scientific. I'm excluding the articles written by journalists here. But I don't think you know how hard it is to get a paper published in Nature. > Think of a research "getting into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine" as a filtering process to weed out the BS. Rather, weed out the danger. And this control, though also flawed to a degree, is very good in my opinion. > Here's how it works: There are many things wrong with the whole process, but your view described here is a little too patronizing to actually get your point across. > Not that the reviewers will go into much bother checking it out, unless the paper is evidently crap. The reviewers, depending on the quality of the publication, should be experts in the field that the paper is being published from. And finally: > Several months/years later, 3-4 other papers will tear down that one, and the cycle continues. Yes, this is called scientific progress.

by calebm 11y ago

tertius 11y ago

Probably, but your ability to process the information is severely limited to someone who has be trained on how to do so. And I'm not saying that your doctor has been trained to do so.

noir_lord 11y ago
My faith in Doctors is pretty much at an all time low. I kept having bouts of extreme pain with really strange symptoms, Doc's said Reflux but I kept saying it didn't fit the pattern, a dozen AE (ER) visits later and I got a Doc who told me to insist on an MRI. Turns out I have Syringomyelia, a serious and rare spinal condition which the radiologist spotted by accident as it was on the edge of the scan, he then did a bunch more images and they saw the syrinx. The next doc I saw I needed an endoscopy and they said the results where abnormal, so I looked into the condition, when I went to see the gastro doc I asked him if the cells where "high" or "low" grade dysplasia and his snarled response "Oh, trying to be a doctor eh", "no, just trying to be an informed patient". I requested a different gastro doc after that, I read everything I could get my hands on and I'm not stupid, I understand my condition well enough to ask good questions at least. So yeah, not a massive fan of Docs at the moment.
- tertius 11y ago
  I can relate to this. I feel that the chasm between the lay person and the MD has widened tremendously in our lifetimes (I'm in my 30s). This also, unfortunately has made the average patient be almost completely uninformed. They demand medication to cure their, self-inflicted, ills, or try to diagnose through Web MD. I for one will educate my children and will continue to educate myself to not require an MD on every occasion. But I know that I'm not an MD and I was not trained to diagnose. I'm glad you found doctors who could give you a correct diagnosis that you can lean on to help you through your own search for the truth. I feel this is the best solution at the end of the day, for patients and doctors to be partners. * My dad is an MD and my wife is a biological scientist which really puts me at an advantage.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

coldtea 11y ago

>I've got some friends who do medical research, and from what they say, "translational research" (getting the latest research into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine) is a HUGE problem. That's a good thing too. Unless the "latest research" actual distills down to common practice, it's usually unproven junk, even if it managed to get published in "peer reviewed journals". In fact several meta-studies have found over 80% of the papers that are published in such journals are wrong and/or non-reproducible. As for research results that made it to Nature or similar pop science magazines those are usually even more journalistic than scientific. Think of a research "getting into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine" as a filtering process to weed out the BS. Here's how it works: A team of some inexperienced postgraduates hastily follow some idea tossed around by a professor who doesn't really follow their progress or care that much, but who'll gladly slap his/hers name on the final paper. If there's a need to secure grants, the paper will tackle some important topic and better have good results. In the way, they make one or more methodological errors, and finally send their paper to some journal. The journal editor might be friends or exchange favors to the professor, and will do what he cans to get favorable reviewers, anonymous or "anonymous". Not that the reviewers will go into much bother checking it out, unless the paper is evidently crap. After its published, some pop science journalistic hack will cover it in the cliched "breakthrough story" format, also giving a full portrait of the professor as a restless scientific maverick (even though he merely signed the paper). The editor will then slap a blockbuster-like title to the story, and readers will enthuse about the possibilities. Several months/years later, 3-4 other papers will tear down that one, and the cycle continues. Though sometimes wrong papers manage to get cited for decades without anyone bothering to redo and verify the original research.

tertius 11y ago
> In fact several meta-studies have found over 80% of the papers that are published in such journals are wrong and/or non-reproducible. And are you able to interpret these studies to see their flaws? What I would focus on more is to look at something called Retraction Watch. > As for research results that made it to Nature or similar pop science magazines those are usually even more journalistic than scientific. I'm excluding the articles written by journalists here. But I don't think you know how hard it is to get a paper published in Nature. > Think of a research "getting into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine" as a filtering process to weed out the BS. Rather, weed out the danger. And this control, though also flawed to a degree, is very good in my opinion. > Here's how it works: There are many things wrong with the whole process, but your view described here is a little too patronizing to actually get your point across. > Not that the reviewers will go into much bother checking it out, unless the paper is evidently crap. The reviewers, depending on the quality of the publication, should be experts in the field that the paper is being published from. And finally: > Several months/years later, 3-4 other papers will tear down that one, and the cycle continues. Yes, this is called scientific progress.