Thread by @ProfDFrancis

Hahaha David Brown is even meaner to his Fellows than I am!

I must say I don't blame the fellow. This is our normal practice in Cardiology.

Do stuff that sounds like it is a good idea, until such time as we discover it isn't.

Vineberg procedure:

Intra aortic balloon pump therapy:

This is a funny one. Notice the accidental omission in the title of the paper.

It was a trial of HF patients with Mechanical Dyssynchrony on Echo (but narrow QRS) not just random people with narrow QRS. Hence the name, "Echo CRT".

Result:

How would you interpret this?

Well, well, well.

You chaps in the Twitterverse are an amazingly intelligent lot.

I'm afraid the authors weren't as, errrr...., how shall I put it... clear?

The authors are fine scientists.

Why do you think they were unable to grasp what the mortality CI 1.11 to 2.93 (P = 0.02) means?

Hint

You know how when a trial is positive, the sponsoring companies always spring the few K dollars needed to make the paper open access?

Seems GE, maker of echo machines that detect dyssynchrony, and Biotronik, maker of CRT pacemakers, accidentally forgot to do so.

Ah well!

In contrast, if a treatment halves mortality, with P=0.02, there is never a "may" in the Abstract Conclusion!

I think that's why @DavidLBrownMD 's fellow prefers to stick things in people

There is a whole science of Action Bias, and we are all guilty.