Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
Throughout the discussions, users frequently reference the 2003 BMJ paper by Smith and Pell, noting the lack of randomized trials on parachute efficacy, with words like 'classic' and 'humorist' emphasizing both the satire and seriousness of the topic. The tone varies from playful skepticism—'Is this a joke?'—to serious critique of evidence standards, illustrating a balanced mix of curiosity and critical thinking about scientific validation.
Most discussions acknowledge that there are no rigorous RCTs confirming parachutes' effectiveness, aligning with the article's humorous conclusion about the lack of evidence.
Participants show high curiosity about the study's findings, referencing it frequently and exploring its implications for evidence-based medicine.
Comments range from lighthearted mentions to serious reflections on scientific research methods, indicating a moderate but thoughtful depth of engagement.
The discussions highlight the broader implications of the study, emphasizing how it challenges assumptions and raises important questions about scientific validation and medical practices.
@c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effective when jumping out of a plane. The point is that we can’t necessarily have high quality RCTs for everything. Some things we must take as prima facie evident.
“There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge from 2003. They were unable to find any. Therefore, parachutes might not work https://t.co/wLSX3KpD9d
In 2018, "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" was published in the British Medical Journal. It sought to determine if wearing a parachute when jumping from a plane had any impact on survivability. It did not.
@c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. https://t.co/AysgzsAJJJ
Reviewing this classic article @bmj.com Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial doi.org/10.1136/bmj.... I still teach it all the time
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials - BMJ www.bmj.com/content/327/... #clinicaltrials #causality
This systematic review highlights that parachutes lack rigorous randomized controlled trials to prove their effectiveness, despite widespread belief in their safety. It emphasizes the importance of evidence-based…
Dr. Ken Milne discusses the principles of evidence-based medicine, critical appraisal, and the limitations of traditional evidence hierarchies, introducing a new perspective on the evidence pyramid for clinical…
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Why scientist don't always do RCTs, even though some people may be harmed by an intervention. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
Time to re-up the greatest scientific paper ever published from @bmj.com : “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials” bmj.com/content/327/74…
Time to re-up the greatest scientific paper ever published from @bmj_latest : “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials” https://t.co/dpuYZoH8T1 https://t.co/CfPO7tL1b9
@olegtvv Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials* **Authors:** Gordon C.S. Smith and Jill P. Pell **Journal:** *BMJ* (British Medical Journal) **Publication Date:** December 18, 2003
Reviewing this classic article @bmj.com Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial doi.org/10.1136/bmj.... I still teach it all the time
Whoops! I stand corrected, sort of. There was an RCT on parachutes, but parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury. Next time I'll search the literature more thoroughly before posting www.bmj.com/content/363/...
Reminds me of this study that found parachutes do not reduce risk of injury when jumping from a plane (that is stationary and grounded)
RT @ChadDKollas: @baileyr93853367 This ethical problem with RCTs is echoed by the relative lack of evidence for parachute effectiveness.…
RT @ChadDKollas: @baileyr93853367 This ethical problem with RCTs is echoed by the relative lack of evidence for parachute effectiveness.…
@baileyr93853367 Oh, there was one RCT that showed no benefit of parachutes over control (empty back packs), but there was a small methodological shortcoming…. https://t.co/4nlNrHXbrq
@baileyr93853367 This ethical problem with RCTs is echoed by the relative lack of evidence for parachute effectiveness. https://t.co/4nlNrHXbrq
Someone did a trial on "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" There was no placebo, just a control group with no parachutes "Results: Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury"
RT @gabissima: @LLalamurph @KnownHeretic @BoyGeorge Had a man demanding proof that same sex loos etc protected woman from predatory men -my…
@LLalamurph @KnownHeretic @BoyGeorge Had a man demanding proof that same sex loos etc protected woman from predatory men -my comment is this: 'Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised'... Want to bet on the conclusion? https://t.co/tVbfok8N9b
We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute." pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14684649/
There's a very through randomized controlled trial in The BMJ that found there is no difference in Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: www.bmj.com/content/363/...
From the BMJ: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial doi.org/10.1136/bmj....
R. W. Yeh et al. (2018). "Look Before You Leap: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" BMJ 2018:363 www.bmj.com/content/363/...
@DocDarrin @ASAMorg I strongly recommend reviewing these two articles about RCTs for parachute effectiveness to better understand RCTs’ limitations. https://t.co/4nlNrHXbrq https://t.co/FVKBcycKmQ
www.bmj.com/content/363/... Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial | The BMJ
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial | The BMJ https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
Counterpoint: www.bmj.com/content/363/... Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from ...
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials | The BMJ https://t.co/oHACXU7lCm
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials - BMJ www.bmj.com/content/327/... #clinicaltrials #causality
@Dudeeeeee25144 @Apelsinklyfta95 @HughEdw54983916 https://t.co/sLGDczUdqn
Excerpt from "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial", BMJ, 2018 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30545967/
RT @profeclaudioni1:
RT @profeclaudioni1:
RT @profeclaudioni1:
RT @profeclaudioni1:
RT @endogenetica: @PauloLotufo Me lembrei deste artigo clássico e Hilário https://t.co/C7Z1k0lPIu
@PauloLotufo Me lembrei deste artigo clássico e Hilário https://t.co/C7Z1k0lPIu
I collect #unusual and #irreverent articles, satire and serious. Always looking for more. #AltJournalClub #Academic "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials" pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14684649/ [satire]
@vaccinologie @ThomSkell @lonnibesancon https://t.co/5kDOACX7ql si vous aimez les vidéos
Turns out that this post about the problems of Parachute Research is not, after all, about the deficiencies highlighted in this study pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14684649/
Parachute RCT Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials https://t.co/leseXqLe8O https://t.co/guY0ou0Ckg https://t.co/6qocyrI1yl
Right? It reminded me of "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial." doi.org/10.1136/bmj....
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
RT @stacycay: “There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parach…
“There are no randomized controlled trials of HRT” Here’s a systemic review of randomized controlled trials regarding Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge from 2003. They were unable to find any. Therefore, parachutes might not work https://t.co/wLSX3KpD9d
RT @DrPaulaGordon: And parachutes! https://t.co/BT9tA4T3gY
And parachutes! https://t.co/BT9tA4T3gY https://t.co/kOFvz3KOH5
@gwern -Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials1 -Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial2
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 #parachute #aircraft #science
This point was very aptly illustrated by this paper about whether parachutes prevent injury or death when falling from a great height. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14684649/
RT @aflwstats: @MxVivianWulf Smith, G. C., & Pell, J. P. (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational c…
@MxVivianWulf Smith, G. C., & Pell, J. P. (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 327(7429), 1459–1461. https://t.co/x6bbdzec1Z
New to me, and great for #psychology Intro students and the Methods lesson because of the entertainment it provides: Yeh et al (2018). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: Randomized controlled trial. doi.org/10.1136/bmj....
@rosshm16 @felipecarpes @PauloPelicioni Similar to this: https://t.co/eIp2IM1doA
RT @ChadDKollas: Here's an example of the similar limitations of RCTs, from @bmj_latest from 2003, https://t.co/4nlNrHXbrq https://t.co/y8H…
RT @ChadDKollas: Here's an example of the similar limitations of RCTs, from @bmj_latest from 2003, https://t.co/4nlNrHXbrq https://t.co/y8H…
RT @ChadDKollas: Here's an example of the similar limitations of RCTs, from @bmj_latest from 2003, https://t.co/4nlNrHXbrq https://t.co/y8H…
RT @ChadDKollas: Here's an example of the similar limitations of RCTs, from @bmj_latest from 2003, https://t.co/4nlNrHXbrq https://t.co/y8H…
Here's an example of the similar limitations of RCTs, from @bmj_latest from 2003, https://t.co/4nlNrHXbrq https://t.co/y8HNnwW8bO
@ZivoAdam Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials https://t.co/585E45ooz9 https://t.co/sUtH3rLyNI
@seeingkrungthep @Real_ShaneGray @JeromeAdamsMD That is one of my absolute favorites "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials: https://t.co/Pf7FsrNJpn
@SolomonKurz @farid_anvari @EikoFried @DataColada Yeah, but sometimes the common sense is really rather convincing.... Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials https://t.co/9IMcMeKsAy
@JunichiSeike エヒデンスバカをおちょくったこの論文、ご存じですか。私は仕事がら医学論文読むことが多いですが、パラシュートなしでケガするかどうかもランダム化試験がないので断定できない、と言ってるような健康食品のチラシレベルの研究、少なくないですよ。 https://t.co/sAOAOyiRF1
Is this a joke? How could it not be a joke? “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial”
@PeatReturns Sobre la causalidad: En nutrición hay muy pocas cosas que claras que deriven de un ECA's a su meta-análisis Pero no te des mal, muchas otras cosas "demostradas" tampoco lo tienen, i.e. la efectividad de los paracaídas para evitar muertes https://t.co/zgwjjQGOt5
@oportunismus "Ніхто не проводив подвійне сліпе рандомізоване...." Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61
RT @Guiro_IRad: @SriniTummala @RadDrDuke @NEJM @jaygirimd @AustinBourgeois @JayMathewsMD @CHICKVIR Not always needs to RCT data to know it…
@SriniTummala @RadDrDuke @NEJM @jaygirimd @AustinBourgeois @JayMathewsMD @CHICKVIR Not always needs to RCT data to know it works.
In 2018, "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" was published in the British Medical Journal. It sought to determine if wearing a parachute when jumping from a plane had any impact on survivability. It did not.
RT @Scintigraphiste: En 2003, deux chercheurs décident de rassembler toutes les études sur le sujet pour faire le point sur les connaissanc…
En 2003, deux chercheurs décident de rassembler toutes les études sur le sujet pour faire le point sur les connaissances scientifiques sur le sujet. https://t.co/220tkangXZ
RT @drpablocorral:
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft [pdf] (bmj.com) Main Link | HN Post
By far the best article I have read thus far in grad school.
RT @twaa22111: @MBerghaeuser Sie verharmlosen das Problem! Es gibt nicht nur keine guten, es gibt gar keine RCTs zu Fallschirmen. Ein In…
@TheRealDHR @KatyMontgomerie @ATinyBitCrazy There have been no RCTs for the effectiveness of parachutes prior to this study. "As w/ many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials." https://t.co/ccxfEVscfk
@MBerghaeuser Sie verharmlosen das Problem! Es gibt nicht nur keine guten, es gibt gar keine RCTs zu Fallschirmen. Ein Industriezweig hat über Jahrzehnte den freien Fall medikalisiert und mit dem Mythos, dass Fallschirme Leben retten, Milliarden verdient. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
they probably responding to this other study that says that we can't say parachutes are effective in skydiving cos there are no RCT studies. looool. troll scientists are the best. https://t.co/6cW1BleVBx https://t.co/mo8HJXlclc
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
RT @airwayjedi: @c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effe…
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
@GAEscobarMD @c0nc0rdance The study was spurred by this one from 2003 https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa
@c0nc0rdance An earlier 2003 study https://t.co/n0gNZGmhfa Concluded there’s no good evidence to support parachutes as effective when jumping out of a plane. The point is that we can’t necessarily have high quality RCTs for everything. Some things we must take as prima facie evident.
RT @Dhananjayasha19: @c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and ma…
@c0nc0rdance Worth remembering the forerunner of this spoof: Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. https://t.co/AysgzsAJJJ
RT @john_s_wilkins: @sameo416 @leafwarbler And also https://t.co/1qlT1u4Ft3
@sameo416 @leafwarbler And also https://t.co/1qlT1u4Ft3
@NephroP @ria_dancel @NephroGuy @ArgaizR @Rajiv_Sinanan @G2Disrupt @pdsalinas https://t.co/qAcEOtjQc5
“We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention.” https://t.co/wzPy1iwoEG
RT @rbarbosa91: @VipsMDMEd @JAMA_current @JAMANetwork I include this because there might be a few people out there that somehow have not re…
@VipsMDMEd @JAMA_current @JAMANetwork I include this because there might be a few people out there that somehow have not read this classic. https://t.co/eo7hHpVodc
@mtaibbi https://t.co/kQIZP8mYbV
RT @Alzhacker: この皮肉を利用して、Gordon SmithとJill Pellは、「重力チャレンジに関連した死亡と重大な外傷を防ぐためのパラシュート使用：無作為化対照試験の系統的レビュー」と題する偽装論文を書いた。 https://t.co/Xy47W6Bfhf
RT @Alzhacker: この皮肉を利用して、Gordon SmithとJill Pellは、「重力チャレンジに関連した死亡と重大な外傷を防ぐためのパラシュート使用：無作為化対照試験の系統的レビュー」と題する偽装論文を書いた。 https://t.co/Xy47W6Bfhf
RT @Alzhacker: この皮肉を利用して、Gordon SmithとJill Pellは、「重力チャレンジに関連した死亡と重大な外傷を防ぐためのパラシュート使用：無作為化対照試験の系統的レビュー」と題する偽装論文を書いた。 https://t.co/Xy47W6Bfhf
この皮肉を利用して、Gordon SmithとJill Pellは、「重力チャレンジに関連した死亡と重大な外傷を防ぐためのパラシュート使用：無作為化対照試験の系統的レビュー」と題する偽装論文を書いた。 https://t.co/Xy47W6Bfhf
@LeorSapir Have you seen https://t.co/eTD5kPlCkv ?
RT @Nibor_Tolum: Cette pyramide est simplement un référentiel "mou" permettant de se faire une idée de l'importance d’une contribution dans…
RT @Nibor_Tolum: Cette pyramide est simplement un référentiel "mou" permettant de se faire une idée de l'importance d’une contribution dans…
RT @Nibor_Tolum: Cette pyramide est simplement un référentiel "mou" permettant de se faire une idée de l'importance d’une contribution dans…
@FondOfBeetles https://t.co/vU2FG2mAzv
Cette pyramide est simplement un référentiel "mou" permettant de se faire une idée de l'importance d’une contribution dans un champs, souvent l'EBM. CF le thread de @T_Fiolet https://t.co/QDaGkklbW3 Ainsi que la vidéo associée https://t.co/rtBtCCtUkJ
Same with parachutes... 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 https://t.co/Bx4rPVxZ37
@LuciadelCarmen6 @CariAguilarNu Hay ríos de tinta sobre lo sobrevaloradas que están las revisiones sistemáticas. Este es un clásico y mi texto favorito al respecto. https://t.co/lAkRD2DOFJ Irónicamente, tú si concluiste todo eso sobre mí, con un sólo tuit.
@Leicnut @AiredaleDodger https://t.co/xQZ2LklluY
@nkagetsu @MCSlab_uiuc Don't forget this important meta analysis from 2003! #MasksInHealthcare https://t.co/KLOxemvkwn
@JonathanSarfat1 @DiegoHAWK6 @TakethatCt @ShockTraumaRN @TigerlillySusan @JohnRee58027351 @MagneticSilica @AreYouSure1985 @Dalmane15 @ptcjoneses @real_seeking @AtomsksSanakan @OXHarryH1 @SaltaoVladimir @ryanbeed @Purrrr31 @KStateTurk @Lunatic__Fringe @DrAcula987 @XRadarP https://t.co/KXEqBXv2Xb
@GregLehman @JackAChew https://t.co/AEczEd2E0J
lectura crítica de articulos, os pongo un artículo que me sirvio para aprender sobre la lectura crítica, os propongo que comenteis articulos que os han servido para las lecturas criticas y lo comentéis. https://t.co/kFJOZyMFFx
RT @T_Fiolet: Nouvelle vidéo #3 de 7 min sur la lecture critique d'articles scientifiques https://t.co/TxM5OlN6fu Une proposition d'une no…
RT @T_Fiolet: Nouvelle vidéo #3 de 7 min sur la lecture critique d'articles scientifiques https://t.co/TxM5OlN6fu Une proposition d'une no…
RT @T_Fiolet: Nouvelle vidéo #3 de 7 min sur la lecture critique d'articles scientifiques https://t.co/TxM5OlN6fu Une proposition d'une no…
RT @T_Fiolet: Nouvelle vidéo #3 de 7 min sur la lecture critique d'articles scientifiques https://t.co/TxM5OlN6fu Une proposition d'une no…
RT @T_Fiolet: Nouvelle vidéo #3 de 7 min sur la lecture critique d'articles scientifiques https://t.co/TxM5OlN6fu Une proposition d'une no…
Nouvelle vidéo #3 de 7 min sur la lecture critique d'articles scientifiques https://t.co/TxM5OlN6fu Une proposition d'une nouvelle pyramide du niveau de preuve influencée par GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) évaluant un ensemble d'études https://t.co/MZvFjoNSt7
@ThinkingCC @Gab_H_R @Andy_Ekins @Tortillou @Francofoam1 @MoreauMD Then the 1st meta analysis in 2003 concluded there is no robust data - aka RCTs - to recommend the use of parachute. https://t.co/Jw5z0CyoMe The 1st RCT in 2018 sought to answer this question. Unfortunately, this is a negative trial. https://t.co/zsUer0hqqg https://t.co/2Y5hWq0T3U
RT @BeckerLabCRTD: @MDaware Zero randomised trials on parachutes https://t.co/FD6v6LanNQ
For all those demanding RCT as the only acceptable determiner of preventative measures. :D https://t.co/QvrPja3rAv
@RyanMarino @beyerstein Has anyone linked to this yet? https://t.co/98mQq6HTtt
@MDaware Zero randomised trials on parachutes https://t.co/FD6v6LanNQ
@JimRosenthal4 To engineer familiar with filtration been obvious for long time. Particle sizes believe your right, but without
If an intervention “possibly offers a modest to marginal effect size”, THEN it is most beneficial to do RCT’s (and/or SCED’s?!). Below is a nice, clear thread responding to that classic BMJ ‘parachute paper’: https://t.co/hiUFpC7ELa https://t.co/MXvEuFqeVA
"everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine... participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute" I've been meaning to read this for a while, and it didn't disappoint! https://t.co/P5C3bbBpGN https://t.co/4gJHDHXYcx
@manigreeva @sankha_shubhra @abhishekimsbhu @Ms_Aflatoon @ashishmaharishi @abandopa @Baudam_Bhartiya @bombaybyrd @BreastSurgeonGA @docdcruz @Trivandrum_Onco @Kishor_Ayu @deepaknajar @fideliav93 @amitabhvaranasi @RudraPrasadAch @himanshuasthan2 Gordon Smith did the meta analysis in 2003 however this was before the publication of 2018 Chiasmas Joke RCT you shared. Smith never found a RCT on parachute vs no, and he concluded that parachutes have been accepted without enough evidence.
RT @giovannilandoni: Just for fun Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of…
Just for fun Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised… https://t.co/MCPdVNwtLm
@KineMeuh Results: We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention. https://t.co/xZMLDmbCsG
@OblivionVortex @Pullingaclaudia @gaijingirl2004 @AlvaroIM77 @JosephLPoulin @thruthfulas @riScorpian @IncreaseMyT @PerryWadeSam @KathrynTewson @AblemanAdam @wqsaves @ElipieMegan @brunswick_t @hectic_energy @aaronjmate @RichSeviora @apark2453 "We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute." https://t.co/ZVf7Az2NaL
Para los fans de la evidencia científica y la estadística: https://t.co/pARB47mcVv
@LimitingThe Cautionary example number 2: https://t.co/KI91iXZ2uQ
Review: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma https://t.co/XVrI2C3Mj0
@TriageNurseMD Has this been proven in an RCT? I feel like you could convince efforts with this SR https://t.co/OFwaf113qI
Yeh et al - Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
Smith and Pell. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/
@jmcrookston It’s this: “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials” doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459
The only thing I would add is that lots of questions/topics don’t warrant quant experimental designs. It’s possible to directly observe or describe causal mechanisms. Like we don’t need to run clinical trials to test if parachutes save lives (see https://t.co/x3T9m0cVk0 ). https://t.co/q3L31sxyDm
"We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute." https://t.co/hjsTwrNrsl
@drandrewmackay Ask the authors of this beauty to do a systematic review. https://t.co/JlxiBOHysD
Tough but fair. https://t.co/wsn8s7XSnB https://t.co/IHJE2wzAHY
@DanielWhitby @bmj_latest @PatrickOwenPhD @PhysioMeScience @evidenzpt @LarsDonath Yes, the teaspoon one was a very nice one. My absolute favourite is (of course) the #systematicreview of parachute effectiveness in preventing injury/death https://t.co/jQ35qfGrVl (Also because it does make you think about evidence based medicine)
@yaacovbaruch @RanBalicer https://t.co/VA6J9TEj4M והקודמים - Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials https://t.co/pZNgP6Eoeu Parachute approach to evidence based medicine https://t.co/kADo57FAXO
Today I learned about "parachute trials" and discovered my new favorite meta analysis. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://t.co/4alzNaTLbz
Given that the body of expert knowledge on covid-19 is undoubtedly flawed, it is tempting to think that a more agnostic perspective, with fewer a priori commitments, is somehow epistemically superior. But taken too far this is a dangerous position. https://t.co/SrmeCpTTQn https://t.co/L7Ucb6jblz
@erlemarie @andersskyrud En studie med en viss overføringsverdi i denne sammenhengen... https://t.co/xvDhzRzuMx
Eine umfassende Metaanalyse von randomisierten kontrollierten Studien über die Wirksamkeit von Fallschirmen (humoristischer Beitrag zur Goldstandard-Debatte). https://t.co/v4wnima6Eh #LastRT
@medicblasto Bueno, los paracaídas tampoco salvan vidas según la 100cia. https://t.co/BNgnmvwjq4
@Profiterol500mg @jramonfernandez A ver, éste es un claro caso en el que correlación SÍ corresponde con casualidad. Vaya, el terreno de correlación entre NO usar paracaídas y sufrir trauma severo https://t.co/84x5hy736F
"Parachutes reduce the risk of injury after gravitational challenge, but their effectiveness has not been proved with randomized control trials." (Smith and Pell, 2003, https://t.co/mL38EmtYzS)
RT @DefecheLouis: En effet, il n’existe aucune étude prouvant que le parachute permet d’éviter la mort ou des blessures graves. Une méta-an…
RT @DefecheLouis: En effet, il n’existe aucune étude prouvant que le parachute permet d’éviter la mort ou des blessures graves. Une méta-an…
RT @DefecheLouis: En effet, il n’existe aucune étude prouvant que le parachute permet d’éviter la mort ou des blessures graves. Une méta-an…
RT @DefecheLouis: En effet, il n’existe aucune étude prouvant que le parachute permet d’éviter la mort ou des blessures graves. Une méta-an…
RT @DefecheLouis: En effet, il n’existe aucune étude prouvant que le parachute permet d’éviter la mort ou des blessures graves. Une méta-an…
RT @DefecheLouis: En effet, il n’existe aucune étude prouvant que le parachute permet d’éviter la mort ou des blessures graves. Une méta-an…
En effet, il n’existe aucune étude prouvant que le parachute permet d’éviter la mort ou des blessures graves. Une méta-analyse l’ a montré. Le parachute n’est donc pas plus efficace que l’homéopathie?
@Jinkinson1 @nntaleb What about this sort of evidance!?https://t.co/D8uJUckCDb
Let's hope the authors of #8 cited this 2003 paper that is suspiciously similar. https://t.co/ooX7uq7Pyw https://t.co/GB4VB8p7PT
@Damkyan_Omega Données manquantes, et pas de RCT. Le défi a déjà été lancé par le BMJ à la science, et aucun scientifique n’a dit chiche.
#protontherapy Are further studies needed to justify the use of PBT for paediatric cancers? A review of current evidence. https://t.co/mhWWDFiAJM Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma to gravitational challenge: No randomised controlled trials https://t.co/UAmh5fJ7t3 https://t.co/nQH2jPJpMH
The follow-up to this: https://t.co/4pc5IKULyc https://t.co/mDzvaxTEl5
@truthy_ty @jessicourtright @DiagnosticChick https://t.co/FtCBi43g7U
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial | The BMJ https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial | The BMJ https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
BMJ, Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 1, 62–73. 327, 1459–1461. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 doi:10.1080/14733140112331385268 *Sousa, S. D. ...
327.7429.1459 Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles ... BMJ, 369(m1548) DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1548. Available at https://www. bmj.com ...
BMJ, 327, 1459-1461 doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003). 22.Svestka, /., Bittér, l (2007). Compliance/adherence and efficacy of ...
to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 327(7429), 14591461. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. Example 1.7. The ...
BMJ. 2003;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 7. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 Sciences, United States of America, 113(45), 12673–12678. Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S. ...
doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003). 22. Svestka, J., Bitter, I. (2007). Compliance/adherence and ...
British Medical Journal, 327(7429), 1459-1461. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. Smith, R. A. (2006). The utility of force:The art of war in the modern world ...
in recent decades, reversals that may have been averted bmj.327.7429.1459 | ... doi:10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68 Aug 3. doi:10.1186/s12885-021-08632-8 12 ...
BMJ 2003;327:1459. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. 0 RéactionsCommenter; Partager sur Facebook. Facebook. Partager sur X. X. Partager sur Linkedin.
BMJ. 2003; 327(7429): 1459–1461, doi: 10.1136/ · bmj.327.7429.1459, indexed in Pubmed: 14684649. Adres do korespondencji: Manu L.N.G. Malbrain. Department of ...
BMJ, 327(7429), 1459–61. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. 6. But health systemsare complex… WHO AHPSR 2008. 7. Software neglected. 8. Complexity & systems ...
... British Medical Journal (BMJ) qui réunit des articles décalés ou franchement hilarants. ... 10.1136/bmj.k5033 (Published 12 December 2018). Jaeger SR, Lee ...
doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 (revue systématique qui concluait ironiquement qu'il n'y avait pas d'essais cliniques randomisés évaluant l'efficacité des ...
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
... 10.1136/bmj. 327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as ... BMJ titled: “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma ...
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003)
... (BMJ). Désireux de conduire leur étude dans les règles de l'art, les ... 10.1136/bmj.k5094. We jumped from planes without parachutes (and ...
BMJ 2003;327:1459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003). Research Christmas 2018: Look Before You Leap
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. PMID: 14684649; PMCID: PMC300808. Verkamp J. Why we should stop proving ...
... 327.7429.1459 Available at https://www.ncbi ... BMJ. 2018 Dec 13;363:k5094. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5094. Erratum in ... 10.1136/bmj.m2475 (
... BMJ 2003; 327 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj. 327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1459 Gordon C S ...
... 10.1136/bmj. 327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1459 Gordon C S Smith (gcss2@cam.ac.uk), professor1 ...
... BMJ 2003; 327 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj. 327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1459 Gordon C S ...
... 10.1136/bmj. 327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1459 Gordon C S Smith (gcss2@cam.ac.uk), professor1 ...
... challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 327(7429), 1459–1461. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. [deleted]. • 7y ago.
... British Medical Journal (BMJ) qui réunit des articles décalés ou franchement hilarants. ... 10.1136/bmj.k5033 (Published 12 December 2018).
the bmj | BMJ 2018;363:k5094 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5094 1. Christmas ... justifiably prevent a true randomized evaluation of a bmj.327.7429.1459
... BMJ 2003; 327 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj. 327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1459 Gordon C S ...
doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5094 | BMJ 2018;363:k5094 | the bmj purpose and ... bmj.327.7429.1459. 2 United States Parachute Association ...
doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 (revue systématique qui concluait ironiquement qu'il n'y avait pas d'essais cliniques randomisés évaluant l ...
... BMJ 2003; 327 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj. 327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1459 Gordon C S ...
... BMJ https://doi. org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 .... choosing an alternative exercise (single leg) and making claims that it is better than ...
... 10.1136/bmj. 327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as ... https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.short Abstract ...
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1459. Abstract.
... BMJ 2003; 327 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1459 Gordon C S Smith ...
... BMJ, 327 (7429), 1459-1461 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 · The Friday Funny: Why Evidence-Based Medicine Is Not The Whole Story ...
DM
S
PS
GP
M
LA
KM
CH
TG
GR
S
OR
P
JS
EB
JC
H
PN
ED
AE
JS
NY
CF
GW
A
RS
S
D
JB
G
A
JN
MH
E
B
F
C
K
MC
MO
DG
NS
TI
K
SN
GE
LF
A
WT
JF
SW
EC
ア
JR
ВУ
VA
JG
TB
VS
RL
PM
G
MN
AN
HB
I
DS
?
SH
DD
RS
RA
LG
LR
B
T
GV
GQ
HM
DD
CS
PS
S
LC
R
SC
JP
MA
L
CP
MC
JW
A
SP
JE
RF
KD
K
T
A
R
LG
AM
AM
MF
NS
BP
DH
BR
MD
GS
JB
JT
BC
SS
JP
MP
TM
GM
FD
L
L
RS
P
EG
M
TO
KN
AP
TE
DB
PL
DC
DM
OG
FG
WM
DG
PM
AR
F
AF
FB
LF
SS
L路
GM
SA
TL
AA
NO
BB