GET-IT Jargon Buster
About GET-IT
GET-IT provides plain language definitions of health research terms
0 of 17 questions completed
Questions:
These questions test your knowledge of why it’s important to carry out fair tests of treatments – medical, surgical, complementary or any other kind – before routinely using them in practice.
Click “start quiz” to find out!
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
0 of 17 questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
Average score |
|
Your score |
|
This section describes several examples where doctors have got it wrong, but we don’t know exactly how often it happens.
This section describes several examples where doctors have got it wrong, but we don’t know exactly how often it happens.
Can you think of any examples of treatments that turned out to do more harm than good?
You can find out more about this in “New – but is it better?” or download a PDF.
In addition to this video by Ben Goldacre, you may like to watch this video on the research done by American schoolgirl Emily Rosa and you might like to read more about fair measurement of treatment outcomes.
You may like to watch this video by schoolgirl Emily Rosa and you might like to read more about fair measurement of treatment outcomes.
Have you ever felt better after visiting a kind doctor, even though you haven’t started taking the medicine he or she prescribed for you? You might like to watch this video by Ben Goldacre discussing placebo effects.
Have a look at the largest study addressing the question ‘How often, on average, does a new treatment turn out to be better than and existing treatment?’
Have a look at the largest study addressing the question ‘How often, on average, does a new treatment turn out to be better than and existing treatment?’
If you would like to read relevant material before answering, refer to Djulbegovic B, Kumar A et al. Trial unpredictability yields predictable therapy gains. Nature 2013:500;395-396.
From this study, we don’t know whether they would have got better even without the treatment. Hence a “fair test” generally needs a comparison, or “control”, group of patients. Read more about “Nature – the Healer“.
From this study, we don’t know whether they would have got better even without the treatment. Hence a “fair test” generally needs a comparison, or “control”, group of patients. Read more about “Nature – the Healer“.
Consider what would happen if the 100 people had had no treatment.
Watch this video or read more in Testing Treatments interactive.
For more detail, read Odgaard-Jensen et al, Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000012. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub3.
Watch this video or read more in Testing Treatments interactive.
For more detail, read Odgaard-Jensen et al, Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000012. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub3.
When testing comparing treatments, its important to ensure that patients in the comparison groups are alike except in respect of the two treatments being compaed. You might like to either watch this video or read more in Testing Treatments interactive.
Seeing can lead to believing; but believing can also lead to seeing. Consider Point 3 in this video.
Have you heard of ‘the law of large numbers’? You can find out more about it in Taking account of the play of chance.
It’s important to assess the role that chance may have played in fair tests of treatment. See Taking account of the play of chance.
By cherry picking the results of some studies it is possible to prove almost anything.
Have a look at this video about fad diets.
Consider the message in this cartoon.
Is it ever right to base your conclusions about the effects of a treatment on a single, or even several studies when many have been done?
If you would like to read relevant material before answering, read more about systematic reviews of all the relevant, reliable evidence.
There is good evidence to indicate that participation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs.
For more detail, see Vist GE, Bryant D et al. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No.: MR000009. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub4.
There is good evidence to indicate that participation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs.
For more detail, see Vist GE, Bryant D et al. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No.: MR000009. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub4.
Research on the effects of treatments is only justified if it addresses important uncertainties.
If you would like to read relevant material before answering, consult: Vist GE, Bryant D et al. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No.: MR000009. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub4.
100 minus 12 equals 88!
100 minus 12 equals 88!
If ‘only’ 12% of people allocated to placebo died, most must have survived.
12 percent minus 8 percent equals 4 percent.
12 percent minus 8 percent equals 4 percent.
What is the difference between the two percentages of patients who died?
12 percent minus 8 percent equals 4 percent, and 4 is one third (33 percent) of 12.
12 percent minus 8 percent equals 4 percent, and 4 is one third (33 percent) of 12.
Express the reduction (4 percent) as a proportion of the death rate without Kuritol.
The (12%-8%) 4% reduction in the risk of death means that 4 deaths will be prevented for every 100 patients treated with Kuritol. Therefore, 1 death will be prevented for every 25 patients treated with Kuritol.
The (12%-8%) 4% reduction in the risk of death means that 4 deaths will be prevented for every 100 patients treated with Kuritol. Therefore, 1 death will be prevented for every 25 patients treated with Kuritol.
Death was prevented in 4 out of 100 patients treated with Kuritol.
If you would like to read relevant material before answering, have a look at the Testing Treatments Action Plan.
GET-IT provides plain language definitions of health research terms