5 ms·
As noted in the original post you replied to we don't really need a control group because we already have a lot of experience with people who didn't get any dru
by bluecalm 7y ago
As noted in the original post you replied to we don't really need a control group because we already have a lot of experience with people who didn't get any drugs. Quoting that post: "all that is needed is a proper categorization".
The goal here is to get enough evidence the treatment works or doesn't work. Conducting double blind studies is not the most efficient and fastest way to do that when you already have a lot of preexisting knowledge about both the patients not receiving any drugs and the safety profile of the drug in question.
This is again a situation where statisticians should be asked for help as medical professionals very often operate on very simplistic model (double blind or gtfo) which we just don't have time for this time around.
- lonelappde 7y agoPast cases not a great control group because there's are different biases in "everyone who was sick" vs "people who asked for chloronique".
- IAmEveryone 7y agoWe have far more experience with AIDS, or heart attacks, or hair loss, or really any disease. And yet trials for new medication against these diseases always include a control group.
- bluecalm 7y agoYeah because it's not urgent and it's a clean understood protocol. It's absolutely not optimal if your goal is to get to enough confidence fast.