5 ms·

So 24 patients reported relief of symtoms. It would occur to me that a placebo effect could account for this. A study with a control group would hold greater va

So 24 patients reported relief of symtoms. It would occur to me that a placebo effect could account for this. A study with a control group would hold greater validity in my mind. This seems purely anecdoctal despite academic styling.

merpnderp 5y ago
Placebo effect accounts for changes in their blood markers for micro clots? I'm a big believer in the power of the mind, but this seems a stretch.
- iamthepieman 5y ago
  The point is that without a control group there's no way to know.
  - texasbigdata 5y ago
    I drove to Germany to see the machines. Spoke to the doc admistering it. It's a potentially painful almost full day procedure. We discussed the placebo thing. I'm not an expert on medical ethics but personally I would not want to be intubated (potentially wrong word) into that thing for hours and not get treatment.
  - nradov 5y ago
    That's not strictly true. Consider our complete set of medical knowledge today. What percentage of that knowledge came from studies with control groups?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - yamrzou 5y ago
      When experimenting with new treatments, a control group is very important. Otherwise the study could be biased in favor or against the treatment. Even when a control group is present, a poorly-designed experiment could later turn out to be problematic, such as the Diethylstilbestrol (DES) medical tragedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol). In that case, studies that were in favor of the treatment were poorly-designed and used historical controls instead of contemporaneous ones.
      - kadoban 5y ago
        I suspect nobody would argue that lack of a control group is better, but this should still be a good lead for something to look at more deeply. It's not like it gives you no information.
        yamrzou 5y ago
        Agreed.
    - inciampati 5y ago
      It's about the fraction of that medical knowledge is likely to be revised when considering new controlled studies.
      - nradov 5y ago
        Over a sufficiently long time horizon the fraction of medical knowledge likely to be revised approaches 1. That includes all knowledge generated from controlled studies.
  - costcopizza 5y ago
    No, there is a way to know, just not the way you want to know.
    - iamthepieman 5y ago
      Ad hoc trials? Aka testing in production.
      - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
        Observational studies, which are much more frequent than randomized trials and just as effective, if not more.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Even with a control group, there's no way to know.
  - somewhereoutth 5y ago
    Something about parachutes
- johncearls 5y ago
  It could also simply be time. To me this is obviously a small study that should be followed up (quickly) with a double blind, randomized trial. Until then, I'd be hesitant to put a bunch of ppl on anticoagulants.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    My advice, don't prescribe people anticoagulants until you're satisfied it's safe for your patients.

merpnderp 5y ago

Placebo effect accounts for changes in their blood markers for micro clots? I'm a big believer in the power of the mind, but this seems a stretch.

iamthepieman 5y ago
The point is that without a control group there's no way to know.
- texasbigdata 5y ago
  I drove to Germany to see the machines. Spoke to the doc admistering it. It's a potentially painful almost full day procedure. We discussed the placebo thing. I'm not an expert on medical ethics but personally I would not want to be intubated (potentially wrong word) into that thing for hours and not get treatment.
- nradov 5y ago
  That's not strictly true. Consider our complete set of medical knowledge today. What percentage of that knowledge came from studies with control groups?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - yamrzou 5y ago
    When experimenting with new treatments, a control group is very important. Otherwise the study could be biased in favor or against the treatment. Even when a control group is present, a poorly-designed experiment could later turn out to be problematic, such as the Diethylstilbestrol (DES) medical tragedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol). In that case, studies that were in favor of the treatment were poorly-designed and used historical controls instead of contemporaneous ones.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      I suspect nobody would argue that lack of a control group is better, but this should still be a good lead for something to look at more deeply. It's not like it gives you no information.
      - yamrzou 5y ago
        Agreed.
  - inciampati 5y ago
    It's about the fraction of that medical knowledge is likely to be revised when considering new controlled studies.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Over a sufficiently long time horizon the fraction of medical knowledge likely to be revised approaches 1. That includes all knowledge generated from controlled studies.
- costcopizza 5y ago
  No, there is a way to know, just not the way you want to know.
  - iamthepieman 5y ago
    Ad hoc trials? Aka testing in production.
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
      Observational studies, which are much more frequent than randomized trials and just as effective, if not more.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Even with a control group, there's no way to know.
- somewhereoutth 5y ago
  Something about parachutes
johncearls 5y ago
It could also simply be time. To me this is obviously a small study that should be followed up (quickly) with a double blind, randomized trial. Until then, I'd be hesitant to put a bunch of ppl on anticoagulants.
- _3u10 5y ago
  My advice, don't prescribe people anticoagulants until you're satisfied it's safe for your patients.