Randomized control trials (RCTs) are all the rage, at least among those with a vested interest in clinical research.Tags: Counseling Business PlanGujarati Essay On MonsoonTwentieth Century Interpretations Of Invisible Man A Collection Of Critical EssaysAp Physics HomeworkDesigner Baby Research PaperWhat To Look For In A Business PlanBook Report For First GradeRobert E Lee EssayNatwest Business Plan Template
The 2018 edition took up the gauntlet thrown back in 2003—researchers from Harvard University, the University of Michigan and U. The authors wrote, “We have performed the first randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of parachutes for preventing death or major traumatic injury among individuals jumping from aircraft.
Our groundbreaking study found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between the treatment and control arms.” Indeed, all members of both cohorts were fine.
DATA SOURCES Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists.
STUDY SELECTION Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall.
Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. joined with skydivers to publish “Parachute Use to Prevent Death and Major Trauma When Jumping from Aircraft: Randomized Controlled Trial.” The team enlisted and randomized 23 volunteers.
We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.” Which brings us to the Christmas issue of the , always stocked with unconventional scholarship. Twelve participants wore parachutes while the other 11 donned backpacks that contained no parachutes. The jumpers were assessed shortly after hitting the ground for death or major trauma, and most were reevaluated 30 days later.Plus, the absence of a smart, good RCT does not mean a treatment is not well-grounded.It just might mean no one is willing to pay for the study to be done properly.Th article has received a far share of media attention, both mainstream and social.In case you haven’t seen any of the coverage, the study tested “if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft.” The study compared “(j)umping from an aircraft (airplane or helicopter) with a parachute versus an empty backpack.” Setup as a rigorous, methodologically unassailable RCT, the researchers concluded “(p)arachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention.”What!?!? Well, as they report, they were “only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground.” Although they tried to recruit participants both during commercial flights and on the ground, saying they would be randomized to either a parachute or an empty backpack before they jumped from the plane, they were only able to recruit subjects when on the ground.Sometimes they're just exercises in methodological precision with little or no clinical value; sometimes an RCT can even be absurd.At least that's a lesson from the hilarious satire “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial” just published in the prestigious BMJ (British Medical Journal).The researchers further note, “A minor caveat to our findings is that the rate of the primary outcome was substantially lower in this study than was anticipated ...[subjects] could have been at lower risk of death or major trauma because they jumped from an average altitude of 0.6 m [just under 2 feet] on aircraft moving at an average of 0 km/h.” As the reader suspected, the aircraft were parked on the ground.OBJECTIVES To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.DESIGN Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.