-
Incredibly useful study
I’m hoping something was lost in summarizing the study in the most recent article on the front page because the way it’s written is silly:
“Results showed that, all else being equal, patients were 4.8 times more likely to choose a treatment that stabilized motor ability and 8.1 times more likely to pick one that improved motor function, compared with a treatment that worsened motor function.”
Duh?
“Similarly, patients were 4.3 times and 5.8 times more likely to choose a treatment that stabilized or improved breathing, respectively, compared with one that worsened breathing.”
And duh again?
-
2 Replies
-
I do think the article wasn’t worded quite right. Earlier it said, “involves asking patients to make choices between two hypothetical treatments with different attributes — for example, a high-efficacy medicine with a high risk of side effects, versus a less effective but safer treatment.” So, I’m thinking instead of saying worsened a better option would be less effective. Since SMA is progressive less effective does mean disease will worsen though, but in writing that does make you raise an eyebrow.
-
Ok and now WTF with the IQ study? They threw out the results of the guy that scored in the 140s but left in the one that scored in the 60s. Someone with IQ scores in the 60s has something else significant going on with them that’s not SMA.
Log in to reply.