It's weird, because I sometimes swing either way. On the one hand, you see studies that have found basically nothing being touted as the most amazing thing ever, but you also get really cool, interesting findings ignored because they aren't communicated well enough
An example: my favourite study was done by Usyd on paracetamol for acute lower back pain. It was a flawlessly executed RCT, and it basically proved that paracetamol is worthless as a treatment for this problem
-
-
There was a large body of evidence questioning paracetamol's use in certain situations, many subjective reviews indicating that it might not work, and then they did a simply superb study and provided incredibly strong evidence for their conclusion
-
By itself, the study didn't mean much - so people who went to GP clinics didn't improve with paracetamol, so what? - but in context, and with 1,500 patients enrolled, it is as close to fact as you can get in the world of medicine
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.