The Braist Study

[flerc]

In your science version I don't know, in Maths aproximated.

[Pooka1]

Are you bitter?

[flerc]

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...trol-Group.htm

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupo_de_control

El experimento divide a los sujetos de estudio en dos grupos. En uno de ellos ―el grupo experimental― se aplica el tratamiento o factor testeado. En el otro ―el grupo de control― no se aplica el factor testeado.1 Luego se comparan ambos resultados. If the proportion of desired results is higher in the experimental (75%) group than in the control group (50%), then the treatment (brace) is efficient. If equal, is inefficient. And if it is less, is counterproductive.

Do you know why they say that?

[Pooka1]

What approximate percentage of the braced group was unnecessarily treated?

Is that percentage similar to past estimates of the approximate percentage of a braced group that appeared to be affected by the brace at least temporarily?

(Total = "unnecessarily braced" + "apparently affected at least temporarily" + "reached surgical range during treatment")

[flerc]

What approximate percentage of the braced group was unnecessarily treated?

~ 50%

Is that percentage similar to past estimates of the approximate percentage of a braced group that appeared to be affected by the brace at least temporarily?

I don't know.

(Total = "unnecessarily braced" + "apparently affected at least temporarily" + "reached surgical range during treatment")[/QUOTE]

Right!

[mariaf]

Perhaps every child should be braced from age 10-15, just to make sure they don't get scoliosis. I mean, why not, right? Surely this would help decrease surgeries, and parents and children would be happy to comply because they would be decreasing their risk of needing surgery, however low their risk was to begin with. Isn't it worth anything to decrease the risk of surgery?

Great post, Gayle. You make the point very well when you said "however low their risk was to begin with". I think that is the key phrase here, and seems to be a question that nobody can answer.

[flerc]

What approximate percentage of the braced group was unnecessarily treated?

Is that percentage similar to past estimates of the approximate percentage of a braced group that appeared to be affected by the brace at least temporarily?

(Total = "unnecessarily braced" + "apparently affected at least temporarily" + "reached surgical range during treatment")

I have answered that, but I don’t see how it proves that researchers were wrong when they concluded about the effectiveness of braces.. it’s only a part of the demonstration? I’m interested in see it.

[flerc]

This area of research is a tough game. That's the most relevant take home message for me. Almost anything that you can rigorously show is remarkable as it is damn near impossible to show anything rigorously.

I would bet $100 if I had the raw data to BrAIST I would likely be able to write a paper with somewhat different conclusions. Same data. This is what is not obvious to folks who don't work with data. Medians versus averages, how you bin the data, what to emphasize, propagation of errors (final angle minus initial angle - the error on that is the square root of the sum of the squares as far as I know... not the error just on one of those measurements), etc. etc.

In order to demonstrate the wrong conclusion of the researchers, you may suppose the raw data what you want, but fulfilling of course what was detailed in the study.

[Pooka1]

Once we see the final curve measurements, this may be largely a moot point. The "successes" may not seem so successful.

[leahdragonfly]

Flerc-how many unnecessarily braced is ok?

Flerc,

You keep flogging the point that Braist proves bracing is effective--we get that. What you don't seem to get is that many children are being braced when they do not need it AT ALL. So I just must know, how many kids is it ok to brace unnecessarily to save one surgery? Two? Five? How about 10? Or 20? At what point is it unethical to treat many kids unnecessarily to save one surgery?

What if the treatment we were discussing were chemotherapy? Or some type of surgical procedure? Would it be just as ok then to treat many kids unnecessarily just to save one from fusion or some other outcome? At some point there must be a value judgement about the treatment. The editorial that accompanied the Braist article concluded that approx 9 kids are treated unnecessarily to save one surgery. I am so curious what you consider ok in terms of unnecessary treatment percentages?

[Pooka1]

You post is so well-stated, Gayle.

The editorial that accompanied the Braist article concluded that approx 9 kids are treated unnecessarily to save one surgery.

And that one surgery is only before maturity. Anyone north of 30* when the brace comes off has no real guarantee of avoiding surgery for life. And that is the vast majority of braced kids.

There is a disconnect between what BrAIST is calling success (<50* at maturity) and what the patients and parents themselves very likely mean by success (avoiding surgery for life). I think more honesty on this issue would see brace wear plummet.

I think there are some parents who would brace with only a 1% chance or a 0.1% chance or or a 0.001% chance or actually ANY chance even if it's one in a million of avoiding surgery. I am getting the impression that our friend flerc is in that group of trying bracing even with odds worse than winning the lottery. Of course people who think that tend not to be the ones having to wear the brace so there's that. Kids only have one childhood and it is valuable.

[flerc]

Once we see the final curve measurements, this may be largely a moot point. The "successes" may not seem so successful.

Well.. it was fun while it lasted!
This was the begining of the discussion:

First of all, it is only ~25% over and above the W&W group that were <50* at maturity. Not "so uneven". This number is not dissimilar to previous studies and so is not groundbreaking.

And how explain your not only limited but also ignorant, as it seems to be, science version this difference, mainly when it is similar to other studies as you are saying? This is what I asked you

You seemed so sure to be able to explain that I have encouraged you, but of course you cannot.
So not pretend now to were not be talking about the non significant this difference was to your absurd science version, where real science have not place. You are simply a lay pretending to talk in the name of Science, trying to confuse people having not science background in order to do your work.
Worldwide Science Organizations should to know what are you doing here.

[Pooka1]

I noticed you didn't address Leahdragonfly's direct question to you.

Me, I think I am just a brain in a vat dreaming all this...

[mariaf]

I think once these papers are published that the researchers should be required to publish the raw data. I think there would be a lot less breathless statements of success if that happened.

Agreed.

And what would the down side be of publishing the raw data?

[flerc]

I think there would be a lot less breathless statements of success if that happened.

As the non significant for you uneven distribution of the "succesful" (as you call them) cases in braced group. Suppose the raw data you want as I said you before. Maybe the fun seeing your asbsurd concepts in action not finished yet.