"Research" can't tell a difference. ASA and AANA web pages of course spin it 180 degrees from each other.
Cochrane Collaboration on anesthesia clinicians
- Thread starter Euripides
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 614
we have ourselves a troll. As far as I can tell there hasn't actually been any reasonably objective research. Just a bunch of retrospective crap that is a shining example of selection bias.
selection bias- area codes with the highest volume of sunscreen sales also have the highest incidence of melanoma. According to the AANA sunscreen must cause melanoma.
put docs solo in rural hospitals doing the bread and butter while shipping out anything that requires higher than brainstem function and I'd imagine they will have perfect outcomes near 100% of the time.
selection bias- area codes with the highest volume of sunscreen sales also have the highest incidence of melanoma. According to the AANA sunscreen must cause melanoma.
put docs solo in rural hospitals doing the bread and butter while shipping out anything that requires higher than brainstem function and I'd imagine they will have perfect outcomes near 100% of the time.
Agreed. However, one can't tell that from reading either the ASA or AANA statements. That was supposed to be the funny part.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 648
Last edited:
Well I guess I have a two part answer. First, there was the point I thought I was making (that I personally found the responses from ASA and AANA humorous since the Cochrane Collaboration essentially says there isn't any valid data). Second, there is the point I guess I did make which is that I'm the only one who thought both responses were hyperbolic. It is clearly not as funny as I thought and I'm sorry I wasted the bandwidth.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 785
- Reaction score
- 68
Just seeing this thread-- I get your point Euripides-- wow-- pretty amazing how both groups completely twisted the results of the systematic review, which was basically that there is no decent evidence one way or the other period-- this is the perfect example of a "we need more research" systematic review, in contrast to a systematic review where there is enough quality data to do a meta-analysis and make a conclusion about the equivalence, inferiority or superiority of an intervention. The article's not a waste of time-- they performed a thorough, well-thought out systematic review and followed the rigorous methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. They appropriately conclude that the current data is useless, and well-designed research is needed to definitively answer the question.
Pretty sad how obviously off the ASA and AANA titles are in their responses.
Pretty sad how obviously off the ASA and AANA titles are in their responses.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 648
The first problem is people put WAY too much emphasis/meaning into meta analysis. Secondly, you can't mine Medicare data sets and come up with anything granular.
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 445
What is a medically qualified anaesthetists?
D
deleted59964
in many countries outside the US we call ours anaesthetists - not anesthesiologists.
there are no nurses delivering anaesthesia here -- so anaesthetist = anesthesiologist.
there are no nurses delivering anaesthesia here -- so anaesthetist = anesthesiologist.
