Hi Ernest, I understand your point but that is the hypothesis the study tested. Non-inferiorty studies can be frustrating to read and interpret and we will discuss this in more detail on the podcast. I would not use that language in discussing with a patient but we're writing these reviews for a medical audience. Thank you for your interest.
So don't phrase the hypothesis in contorted or confusing language. I am part of the medical audience and would still prefer more easily understandable language. "We are doing a study to determine whether stenting or bypass surgery will provide more benefit to patients with left main coronary artery disease" would do the trick. People who aren't familiar with research literature might think the awkward double negative was meant to hide something or confuse them. Not intended as a serious criticism---just a thought.
But that’s the thing. The question the trialists posed is not what you put in quotes.
I wouldn’t sacrifice precision in favour of simplicity, to convey the actual scientific result. How one might frame that to a patient is a different and unrelated matter.
It was not my intent to debate what was merely a stylistic rather than substantive point. But I reviewed the report on the study and what I put in quotes and can't see where I may have misrepresented what the study was all about.
What ever happened to plain English. If I told a patient that one procedure was not non-inferior to another, they would probably walk out.
Hi Ernest, I understand your point but that is the hypothesis the study tested. Non-inferiorty studies can be frustrating to read and interpret and we will discuss this in more detail on the podcast. I would not use that language in discussing with a patient but we're writing these reviews for a medical audience. Thank you for your interest.
So don't phrase the hypothesis in contorted or confusing language. I am part of the medical audience and would still prefer more easily understandable language. "We are doing a study to determine whether stenting or bypass surgery will provide more benefit to patients with left main coronary artery disease" would do the trick. People who aren't familiar with research literature might think the awkward double negative was meant to hide something or confuse them. Not intended as a serious criticism---just a thought.
But that’s the thing. The question the trialists posed is not what you put in quotes.
I wouldn’t sacrifice precision in favour of simplicity, to convey the actual scientific result. How one might frame that to a patient is a different and unrelated matter.
It was not my intent to debate what was merely a stylistic rather than substantive point. But I reviewed the report on the study and what I put in quotes and can't see where I may have misrepresented what the study was all about.