A patient of mine died: a complex patient with an NSTEMI, who bled out. I sat down for days with the cardiology guidelines, reading about a 50% improvement in mortality and a 20% lower risk of this and that. Then I looked at the absolute numbers: 1 in 100 against 2 in 100. I felt a cold sweat.
The benefit is clearly there, but my impression of it was exaggerated. I felt I was saving the world, when in reality I was saving a few and harming a few. That day I became more conservative, less enthusiastic and more critical. I think twice now, or more. How do I give advice accurately?
Doctors don't like reading studies, and we are bad at it. But it is a must. Luckily we have people like Sensible Medicine, who make things easier. So what is the use of another site like this?
We try to present absolute numbers graphically. We find this easier to read, and we feel that absolute numbers, with all their downsides, put things in perspective, so that decisions are more appropriate. We also find you the published criticism, which can be hard to find when you read a study.
I am drowning in the day-to-day grind of medicine, and I need something creative to do. Creativity is food for the soul; laughter is the enema.
You still need to read the study and become better at it. Join a journal club, read, and look at Cardiology Trials and Sensible Medicine, because those people really know what they are doing. With time things become easier. We hope this site makes journal clubs easier and inspires critical thinking.
Yes, it is all done by AI, and one doctor looks at it quite superficially. I don't have the time or the knowledge to guarantee anything on this website. If you notice fatal errors, please report them.