By taking a medication daily we buy a lottery ticket with a payout often as low as 1% or 2%.
3/ And we can’t know if we won or not…as winning usually means "nothing" happens.
Of course, we assume no bad outcome = benefits,
so 95% or more appear to benefit, not the 1-2% who truly benefit from RCTs
4/ I'm not a medical nihilist like Jacob Stetenga, I believe medicine has good things...
5/ But....
“This phenomenon, in which the perceived benefits of a treatment far outstrip the reality, is surprisingly common. …The benefits are real, but they tend to be very small”
7/ It’s not surprising then that “many clinicians have undue faith in medicines and treatments they prescribe and recommend.” jamanetwork.com/journals/jamai…
9/ “It’s not surprising that many doctors have trouble discussing chance of benefit and harm from treatment. Over their careers, they receive little help in grasping the topic”
There is a better approach jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
10/ The task of the doctor is broader than simply making patients physically better, because often enough, we can’t actually do that. We need to realize, or perhaps remember, that our job isn’t only to cure people; it’s also to help them make it through when there is no easy cure
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is the most relevant paper I have written. Not perfect but addresses a huge issue I think could change medicine if acknowledged
…it has changed how I think about diagnosis
summary:
Clinicians widely overestimated chance of disease especially after testing
Cardiac ischemia after + ECG—EBM 2-11%, median answer 70%
UTI after + urine cx—EBM 0-8.3%, answer 80%
Breast CA after + mammo—EBM 3-9%, answer 50%
Pneumonia after + CXR EBM 46-65%, answer 95%
Gerd Gigerenzer, David Eddy, @StevenWoloshin@arjunmanrai & others asked how well doctors do at the math of understanding diagnosis, and found they aren’t great.
The @US_FDA has a test comparison site that is incomprehensible to me… but @ASMicrobiology types tell me it reports on analytical sensitivity and LoD for tests
3/n
Clearly, the words physicians use have
a critical function in this communication
Referring to harms as “risks” emphasizes that
the unfavorable outcome may or may not happen,
whereas there is no parallel language that highlights
the equally probabilistic nature of “benefits.”