In message <JY2dnSW6wpwNqrTVRVnyvwA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, JOHN wrote:
> Of around 2500 treatments so far reviewed by the journal's distinguished
> team of advisors, peer reviewers, experts, information specialists and
> statisticians, only 13 percent have been found definitely beneficial. A
> further 23 percent are rated as likely to be beneficial; 8 percent can
be
> classified as a trade off between benefits and harms; 6 percent as
clearly
> unlikely to be beneficial; 4 percent are likely to be ineffective or
> harmful, and a whopping 46 percent - almost half of all treatments
> reviewed - are rated as being of unknown effectiveness.
The subject appears to be the degree to which routine practice
is sup****ted by randomized clinical trials, ideally double-blinded
(there is no exact citation in the original.)
Which group does fracture reduction fall into?
Which group does intravenous fluid replacement fall into?
Which group does oral rehydration for diarrheal disease fall into?
It's rather a long list. A reference to the original review would
clarify matters.
--
| **** happens. Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---+
