- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,661
- Reaction score
- 5,080
Found this abomination of a retrospective study via Doximity.
It concluded lobectomy offers greater survival relative to SBRT in patients age 80+. We know that all retrospective studies need to be taken with a grain of salt, but how can you take a publication seriously when there is a 97% (lobetomy) to 3% (SBRT) lopsided distribution?
It concluded lobectomy offers greater survival relative to SBRT in patients age 80+. We know that all retrospective studies need to be taken with a grain of salt, but how can you take a publication seriously when there is a 97% (lobetomy) to 3% (SBRT) lopsided distribution?