May I suggest that a summary of your article would be statistics don't lie, but statisticians do. Or perhaps, demings formulation- if you torture the data enough it will confess.
The average physician would never be able to do the kind of analysis you do. He/she is oriented to "follow the science", meaning peer reviewed papers and protocolos supposed to have done the analysis for him/her. In this sense, I think that your colleague's comment was correct.
I agree Maria. Dr. Mandrola’s critique of the CHAMPION AF trial results is spot on (as usual, he seems to have misinterpreted his colleagues comments.
The “priors” in question are not limited to the results of related trials, but the sum total of the potential biases / predispositions affecting one’s acceptance of the trial author’s conclusions. Physicians most interested in the outcome are interventional cardiologists, who, for many reasons, are strongly predisposed to “intervening”. Hence the Rorschach test comment and the related, and likely accurate prediction that the CHAMPION trial will lead to increased adoption of LAAC, despite the fact that the procedures hypothesized advantages remain entirely unproven, if not disproven.
John is right, evidence is evidence. That is why the Rorschach has never been a truly useful tool. When it is useful, the abnormal response is obvious and achievable through simple normal interviewing.
May I suggest that a summary of your article would be statistics don't lie, but statisticians do. Or perhaps, demings formulation- if you torture the data enough it will confess.
The incidence of major bleeding might be 23% in the study group. When it happens to you is 100% ….
The average physician would never be able to do the kind of analysis you do. He/she is oriented to "follow the science", meaning peer reviewed papers and protocolos supposed to have done the analysis for him/her. In this sense, I think that your colleague's comment was correct.
I agree Maria. Dr. Mandrola’s critique of the CHAMPION AF trial results is spot on (as usual, he seems to have misinterpreted his colleagues comments.
The “priors” in question are not limited to the results of related trials, but the sum total of the potential biases / predispositions affecting one’s acceptance of the trial author’s conclusions. Physicians most interested in the outcome are interventional cardiologists, who, for many reasons, are strongly predisposed to “intervening”. Hence the Rorschach test comment and the related, and likely accurate prediction that the CHAMPION trial will lead to increased adoption of LAAC, despite the fact that the procedures hypothesized advantages remain entirely unproven, if not disproven.
John is right, evidence is evidence. That is why the Rorschach has never been a truly useful tool. When it is useful, the abnormal response is obvious and achievable through simple normal interviewing.