4 ms·
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995494/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995494/ Something more direct, with results related to actu
by phren0logy 8y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995494/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995494/
Something more direct, with results related to actual event/non-event cardiovascular outcomes, would be ideal. It's also crazy complicated and expensive, so it's reasonable to extrapolate.
Unless you didn't really want data, and had already made up your mind.
- someguydave 8y agoYou mean a study like this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613279/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613279/ (final results here) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339027/
- phren0logy 8y agoThat is a good one, and very relevant. But the control group's unusually good outcomes need explaining. They are better than expected for "treatment as usual," and genuinely a potential confounder for outcomes.
- someguydave 8y agoAgreed, that is a question mark on this study - I think more basic research needs to be done in this area. As you can see from other comments in this tree, many folks think that the science on these matters is settled. As Mark Twain said: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”