Expert choice 115/26/2023 More events means more precision.Īll-cause death was nearly identical with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.00, and nearly symmetrical Confidence Interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.18. The extended follow-up included 268 additional deaths. Median follow-up was now 5.7 years.Īfter the original trial, 289 patients or 5.6% died. This paper included, roughly, 4800 of the original 5200 patients in the trial. This might motivate more practicing doctors to show up.Īt AHA, we learned about extended follow-up. Then the authors and panel could engage in debate. Imagine a world where a paper would be presented and then the audience could expect it to be vigorously appraised. I see more critical appraisal in a journal editorial, and that’s sad because journal editorials are rarely critical. You can have deep respect for the evidence generators and still submit these papers to critical appraisal. Maybe there’s a deep dive later in the afternoon, but these are just more time for celebration. The discussants spend 1 of their 3 minutes congratulating the authors and then there’s no time for panel discussion. The authors rarely focus on their limitations. I understand that research is hard and it’s wonderful to see a study through to finish.īut these are practice-moving studies. It’s like an award ceremony or cheer-leading session. Cardiology meetings have become way too agreeable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |