- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,109
There have been several references of late to research on numerous topics. One very recently was on the topic of UVB. Several have mentioned basing their decision for use of UVB on research. This brings to mind many questions.
Any one who has ever taken any college level research and statistics courses learns that research has to be evaluated for validity. Statistics in and of itself is basically worthless if not evaluated and placed in context. Again, if you have taken a statistics class you know you can utilize many different statistical tests to "prove" just about anything you want. You even can skew the results to again, "prove" anything. Just because something is "published and labeled research" does not mean that it is true.
To be a valid research many things must be considered. Some examples would be, can the research be replicated by anyone and the results be the same? Is the research biased, or has it been influenced by something external? When critiquing research, one always raises an eyebrow when the one conducting and publishing the research is a company that sells the product researched. A perfect example of this is drug companies. They do all kinds of research and publish the findings that benefit them and the success of their product, meaning revenue. Another question, has the research been conducted by non-biased or non-related parties?
As for statistics, one question always arises, are the findings statistically significant? Meaning, finding that a new medication helps one out of 10,000 tested is not statistically significant.
I (Tim) admit that I have not looked in depth at the "research" that has been mentioned numerous times about UVB. I invite those that have looked at it and base their advice and opinions on such research to look closely at the findings of such "research". Is there validity to the research? Were all biases eliminated? Are the findings statistically significant? Has the research been conducted by some one not affiliated with the product/products tested? Has the research ever been reproduced with similar findings? Then please share your opinions and your analysis of that research.
Remember, just because a manufacturer publishes "their findings" does not mean it is valid research. And so, recommendations based on those findings may not be valid either. That manufacturer is only going to publish findings that will benefit them. Additionally if the manufacturer is the one funding the research, again is it valid research?
An interesting example of recommendations based upon research will follow.
Lidaocaine has for years been the drug of choice for a post cardiac arrest patient. They get started on a Lidocaine drip fairly quickly. Lidocaine is an old medication, been around a long time. Fairly recently a new drug (Amiodarone) has been tested and approved for the same purpose. The American Heart Association bases all its algorithms and recommendations on research findings. Because Amiodarone is new and lots of research has been funded by the drug company that makes it, it now is the "recommended" drug by the AHA. However, this does not mean it is any better or more effective than Lidocaine. It simply means more recent research is available. No one wants to fund new research on such an old medication as Lidocaine. There is no money in it, therefore it has gone by the wayside in recommendations, but is still very widely used.
The point of this example is research is not perfect and does not always point to a perfect solution. Again, any research needs to be carefully analyzed for validity.
WOW, that was a very lengthy post. Hopefully some will find it useful and see my point.
Any one who has ever taken any college level research and statistics courses learns that research has to be evaluated for validity. Statistics in and of itself is basically worthless if not evaluated and placed in context. Again, if you have taken a statistics class you know you can utilize many different statistical tests to "prove" just about anything you want. You even can skew the results to again, "prove" anything. Just because something is "published and labeled research" does not mean that it is true.
To be a valid research many things must be considered. Some examples would be, can the research be replicated by anyone and the results be the same? Is the research biased, or has it been influenced by something external? When critiquing research, one always raises an eyebrow when the one conducting and publishing the research is a company that sells the product researched. A perfect example of this is drug companies. They do all kinds of research and publish the findings that benefit them and the success of their product, meaning revenue. Another question, has the research been conducted by non-biased or non-related parties?
As for statistics, one question always arises, are the findings statistically significant? Meaning, finding that a new medication helps one out of 10,000 tested is not statistically significant.
I (Tim) admit that I have not looked in depth at the "research" that has been mentioned numerous times about UVB. I invite those that have looked at it and base their advice and opinions on such research to look closely at the findings of such "research". Is there validity to the research? Were all biases eliminated? Are the findings statistically significant? Has the research been conducted by some one not affiliated with the product/products tested? Has the research ever been reproduced with similar findings? Then please share your opinions and your analysis of that research.
Remember, just because a manufacturer publishes "their findings" does not mean it is valid research. And so, recommendations based on those findings may not be valid either. That manufacturer is only going to publish findings that will benefit them. Additionally if the manufacturer is the one funding the research, again is it valid research?
An interesting example of recommendations based upon research will follow.
Lidaocaine has for years been the drug of choice for a post cardiac arrest patient. They get started on a Lidocaine drip fairly quickly. Lidocaine is an old medication, been around a long time. Fairly recently a new drug (Amiodarone) has been tested and approved for the same purpose. The American Heart Association bases all its algorithms and recommendations on research findings. Because Amiodarone is new and lots of research has been funded by the drug company that makes it, it now is the "recommended" drug by the AHA. However, this does not mean it is any better or more effective than Lidocaine. It simply means more recent research is available. No one wants to fund new research on such an old medication as Lidocaine. There is no money in it, therefore it has gone by the wayside in recommendations, but is still very widely used.
The point of this example is research is not perfect and does not always point to a perfect solution. Again, any research needs to be carefully analyzed for validity.
WOW, that was a very lengthy post. Hopefully some will find it useful and see my point.