Plain‑language strategies for anyone who wants to analyze research studies without getting a PhD in statistics. This is how I kick the tires of a medical journal article.
This is such a great resource. The better we understand how to interpret the quality of a study, the more confident we can be in whether to take note of the results.
Honestly, I expect most people think they're doing well if they read the abstract on PubMed - and that likely includes most 'health bloggers'.
What scares me even more is that soon, everyone will be relying on Google Gemini AI responses to our searches and assuming they're gospel truth - not just for health, for everything.
As physicians I think we are already experiencing the many gaps in important clinical insight from tools like OpenEvidence. But that's why docs like you and me are sharing clinical insights from our perspective, and not just from trained models.
This is such a great resource. The better we understand how to interpret the quality of a study, the more confident we can be in whether to take note of the results.
Well-said. Even going 5 points deep is better than assuming that the headline and conclusion section are fairly reflecting the findings of the data.
Honestly, I expect most people think they're doing well if they read the abstract on PubMed - and that likely includes most 'health bloggers'.
What scares me even more is that soon, everyone will be relying on Google Gemini AI responses to our searches and assuming they're gospel truth - not just for health, for everything.
As physicians I think we are already experiencing the many gaps in important clinical insight from tools like OpenEvidence. But that's why docs like you and me are sharing clinical insights from our perspective, and not just from trained models.