Why we believe time-to-intervention studies
Excessive time pressure: Community Acquired Pneumonia
Door-to-needle time in stroke thrombolysis
What is the ideal time-to-intervention?
Time-to-intervention studies are correlative, and therefore hypothesis-generating only. Unfortunately they are widely misconstrued to imply causation. These correlations are subject to many confounders which often increase the apparent effectiveness of therapy. Confirmation bias leads us to accept the findings of these studies, because we already believe in the effectiveness of our therapies. In the past, time-to-antibiotic studies have driven health policy changes regarding pneumonia treatment which were subsequently shown to be harmful. Its doubtful that time-to-intervention studies add meaningful information to the scientific literature, but rather may merely be a source of noise. Unless of course they support my beliefs, in which case they are pure gold.
Latest posts by Josh Farkas (see all)
- PulmCrit- Should we monitor fibrinogen during full- & half-dose PE thrombolysis? - June 11, 2018
- PulmCrit- High dose vasopressors:Never surrender - June 4, 2018
- PulmCrit- Ten dubious beliefs in neurocritical care - May 21, 2018