Look guys, we outperform the algorithms and screening tools at 15 minutes!
Maybe we add a finger stick lactate meter and really win 😉
Maybe we add a finger stick lactate meter and really win 😉
Look guys, we outperform the algorithms and screening tools at 15 minutes!
Maybe we add a finger stick lactate meter and really win 😉
Look guys, we outperform the algorithms and screening tools at 15 minutes!
They are definitely not immune from GIGO. What was the estimate - 80-90% of what's published in journals is trash?I am surprised this is published in Annals.
It is extraordinarily difficult to find things that are "non-trash" these days. The big name journals are frequently full of pharma garbage. The professional society journals (Annals, JCC, etc.) frequently have a variety of methodological or design flaws preventing their publication in one of the big name journals.They are definitely not immune from GIGO. What was the estimate - 80-90% of what's published in journals is trash?
Totally agree--especially when so many studies can't be replicatedIt is extraordinarily difficult to find things that are "non-trash" these days. The big name journals are frequently full of pharma garbage. The professional society journals (Annals, JCC, etc.) frequently have a variety of methodological or design flaws preventing their publication in one of the big name journals.
The net effect being there are only rare instances in which a single study ought to change practice – it requires a bit of the totality of reading all the bad papers to parse out which aspects of internal and external validity shake out enough to incorporate some aspect into reasonable practice.
But why do that when a bunch of academics can just design "quality" measures, tie reimbursement to them, and force everyone to go along with a bunch of inappropriate interventions ....
Reminds me of how hospital policies are made. You can go around spending months getting every department involved, pushing it through Pharmacy&Therapeutics committe, having it signed by med exec, post written versions of the policy everywhere and then spend dozens of hours training staff on the new policy. And after all that, it may be adopted as "how things are done"It is extraordinarily difficult to find things that are "non-trash" these days. The big name journals are frequently full of pharma garbage. The professional society journals (Annals, JCC, etc.) frequently have a variety of methodological or design flaws preventing their publication in one of the big name journals.
The net effect being there are only rare instances in which a single study ought to change practice – it requires a bit of the totality of reading all the bad papers to parse out which aspects of internal and external validity shake out enough to incorporate some aspect into reasonable practice.
But why do that when a bunch of academics can just design "quality" measures, tie reimbursement to them, and force everyone to go along with a bunch of inappropriate interventions ....