but in medicine, what is the practical alternative?
how do you incorporate these findings? ignore them?
if so, it's probably bad for your patients. the only thing worse than a single-study finding is a zero-study finding.
how do you incorporate these findings? ignore them?
if so, it's probably bad for your patients. the only thing worse than a single-study finding is a zero-study finding.
Let me give you an example of how I approach things. The guidelines for acute pancreatitis recommend using a fluid called LR instead of NS for volume resuscitation. This is based on an single study that included 10 patients and simply noted slightly better lab numbers; there was no difference in clinical outcome. Lots of problems with that study, right (small, underpowered, confounders, validity issues, etc)? However, there's no major disadvantage for using LR in those patients (unless hyperkalemia is a concern), so I use it since it might have a benefit.
This is a very simple example. It gets much more complicated than that.
"Probably" is one of favorite words in medicine, btw :).
"Probably" is one of favorite words in medicine, btw :).