-
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?
Log in to reply.