We have a love-hate relationship with the p-value cutoff of <0.05. A p-value right below this cutoff (say, p=0.04) actually constitutes a surprisingly weak level of evidence (1). Thus, the idea of lowering the p-value cutoff has been around for a while. Unfortunately, this wouldn't really fix our problems with p-values.
ADRENAL and APROCCHSS were both designed with mortality as a primary endpoint. They reached opposite conclusions: steroid had no effect on mortality in ADRENAL, whereas it improved mortality in APROCCHSS. Why?
This post will attempt to create a rough framework for analyzing secondary endpoints. This is primarily intended as a springboard for debate, rather than a final answer to this thorny issue (one which has remained unresolved for decades).
“There is no mortality benefit for that.” How many times have you heard that? The implication is usually the same: that intervention is a waste of time. A smart, evidence-based clinician wouldn’t bother with it. But, what does it actually mean if there is no proven mortality benefit?
Saline vs. balanced solutions has been a topic of ongoing debate. Two fresh studies will illuminate this: the SMART and SALT-ED trials. This post summarizes current knowledge, beginning with physiology and working our way to fresh trials. Reason #1. There is no physiologic rationale for using “normal” saline (NS). Saline is a hypertonic, acidotic fluid […]