How about this for the opening sentence least likely to encourage you to read on… ‘this week we are going to consider statistics’.
This week we are running a CET article which has been accredited for all four professional categories. The reasoning for this was that all of us are responsible for keeping up to date with our professional development and also be able to offer unbiased advice to our patients. All that seems fine, so what about the following statements?
‘Telling people not to smoke does not work.’ ‘There is no such thing as dyslexia – it is a modern-day term applied to those not meeting other people’s expectations.’ ‘The only source of nutrition should be food – supplements are a con.’ ‘These drops should help my cataracts.’ ‘One extra hour a day outdoors should mean my son will not need glasses as strong as mine.’ ‘Watching too much television has caused his short-sightedness.’
All of these statements are genuine and from patients. But each of them is actually quite difficult to answer or address without a better understanding of the published evidence. The fact is, there is never a clear-cut answer when it comes to human matters, and so looking at patterns of evidence, understanding the sampling and the intervention, looking at placebo and control effects, understanding the nature of statistical analyses – all of these can help us to offer a reasonable response to our patients. And, in these increasingly corporate times, also maintain a healthy air of scepticism when looking at published materials.
The need for scientists to question things proposed as facts dates back to Francis Bacon and beyond – we should remember this. To help the process along, this week we begin what I hope will develop into a continuing strand looking at how best to keep you up to date.