4 ms·

Parachutes don't help in any case: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

tdeck 2y ago
> RWY had the original idea but was reluctant to say it out loud for years. In a moment of weakness, he shared it with MWY and BKN, both of whom immediately recognized this as the best idea RWY will ever have. RWY and LRV wrote the first draft. CS, DBK, JBS, EAS, and JLH provided critical review. RMD provided subject matter expertise. DSK took this work to another satirical level. All authors suffered substantial abdominal discomfort from laughter. RWY worried that BKN would not keep his mouth shut until the Christmas issue was published. Somehow I am not convinced this is a real study.
- SamBam 2y ago
  I believe it is a real, satirical study that was performed to address a real, serious issue with the way some studies are performed. My understanding of the target of the satire is studies that compare a treatment to a placebo only in "low risk" populations, and then find that they're is no significant difference between the treatment and the placebo.
weikju 2y ago
hmm... > they jumped from an average altitude of 0.6 m (SD 0.1) on aircraft moving at an average of 0 km/h > The study also has several limitations. First and most importantly, our findings might not be generalizable to the use of parachutes in aircraft traveling at a higher altitude or velocity. Consideration could be made to conduct additional randomized clinical trials in these higher risk settings. However, previous theoretical work supporting the use of parachutes could reduce the feasibility of enrolling participants in such studies
- chatmasta 2y ago
  It seems this is a study about randomized controlled trials, not about parachutes :)
  - tripletao 2y ago
    I believe that deplorable paucity of RCT evidence was first noted in 2003, in "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ I'm glad to see that's finally been addressed! Though for the counterpoint, also see "Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes" https://www.cmajopen.ca/content/cmajo/6/1/E31.full.pdf https://www.cmajopen.ca/content/cmajo/6/1/E31.full.pdf
SapporoChris 2y ago
Are you joking? Conclusion from the article: "Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice." For emphasis: "... the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps." Okay, parachutes don't help when jumping from stationary aircraft that are on the ground. I will not leap to the conclusion that parachutes do not help with high altitude jumps.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  It’s satire
  - cpfohl 2y ago
    And delightful satire at that.
- zeagle 2y ago
  The BMJ Christmas edition is a bit of humour. It's making fun of how everything needs to be a randomized controlled trial and observational evidence is considered inferior ignoring all common sense. I would have linked the older version of this joke study: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459
Arrath 2y ago
Solid "you had me in the first half" energy. I was seriously raising my eyebrow until I got to the bit about parachute-less participants jumping from a half meter altitude. Well done.
yareally 2y ago
Quite the jump... https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/363/bmj.k5094/F2.large.jpg https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/363/bmj.k5094/F2.large.jpg

> RWY had the original idea but was reluctant to say it out loud for years. In a moment of weakness, he shared it with MWY and BKN, both of whom immediately recognized this as the best idea RWY will ever have. RWY and LRV wrote the first draft. CS, DBK, JBS, EAS, and JLH provided critical review. RMD provided subject matter expertise. DSK took this work to another satirical level. All authors suffered substantial abdominal discomfort from laughter. RWY worried that BKN would not keep his mouth shut until the Christmas issue was published. Somehow I am not convinced this is a real study.

SamBam 2y ago
I believe it is a real, satirical study that was performed to address a real, serious issue with the way some studies are performed. My understanding of the target of the satire is studies that compare a treatment to a placebo only in "low risk" populations, and then find that they're is no significant difference between the treatment and the placebo.

weikju 2y ago

hmm... > they jumped from an average altitude of 0.6 m (SD 0.1) on aircraft moving at an average of 0 km/h > The study also has several limitations. First and most importantly, our findings might not be generalizable to the use of parachutes in aircraft traveling at a higher altitude or velocity. Consideration could be made to conduct additional randomized clinical trials in these higher risk settings. However, previous theoretical work supporting the use of parachutes could reduce the feasibility of enrolling participants in such studies

chatmasta 2y ago
It seems this is a study about randomized controlled trials, not about parachutes :)
- tripletao 2y ago
  I believe that deplorable paucity of RCT evidence was first noted in 2003, in "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ I'm glad to see that's finally been addressed! Though for the counterpoint, also see "Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes" https://www.cmajopen.ca/content/cmajo/6/1/E31.full.pdf https://www.cmajopen.ca/content/cmajo/6/1/E31.full.pdf

SapporoChris 2y ago

Are you joking? Conclusion from the article: "Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice." For emphasis: "... the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps." Okay, parachutes don't help when jumping from stationary aircraft that are on the ground. I will not leap to the conclusion that parachutes do not help with high altitude jumps.

ncallaway 2y ago
It’s satire
- cpfohl 2y ago
  And delightful satire at that.
zeagle 2y ago
The BMJ Christmas edition is a bit of humour. It's making fun of how everything needs to be a randomized controlled trial and observational evidence is considered inferior ignoring all common sense. I would have linked the older version of this joke study: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459

Arrath 2y ago

Solid "you had me in the first half" energy. I was seriously raising my eyebrow until I got to the bit about parachute-less participants jumping from a half meter altitude. Well done.

yareally 2y ago

Quite the jump... https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/363/bmj.k5094/F2.large.jpg https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/363/bmj.k5094/F2.large.jpg