104 DYOR - Do Your Own Research
Know the Science
Why is it important to know the science of health? Simply put, because there is a lot of misinformation out there - from anecdotes disguised as evidence to excessive claims made by supplement manufacturers, TV doctors and chat groups touting the latest "miracle cure."
The CHC is built on information from reputable sources which are cited where applicable. You should also be able to 'Do Your Own Research' (DYOR) to review the citations when you wish to verify or go deeper into the subject. You should learn as much as necessary to understand the scientific journals and other documents to a depth you feel necessary to be confident of the evidence. This will give you the courage of your convictions to take action, even if it is not supported by conventional medical practitioners.
The Hierarchy of Evidence: What Types of Research Provides the Most Reliable & Unbiased Results?
The hierarchy of evidence is a fundamental concept in evidence-based research, ranking study designs by their ability to produce reliable and unbiased results. Understanding this hierarchy helps to critically evaluate studies supporting data-driven decisions.
What is a meta-analysis study?
Often called a "study of studies," a meta-analysis is a statistical method that combines results from multiple independent studies to produce more reliable conclusions about a specific research question. This method helps sort out conflicting results, reduce mistakes or biases from single studies, and provide strong evidence for making decisions in areas like medicine, research, or policy.
Advantages of meta-analysis
Increased power: By combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can detect effects that individual studies might miss due to smaller sample sizes.
Comprehensive overview: Provides a more complete picture of the research area by synthesizing all available evidence.
Limitations of meta-analysis
Publication bias: The results can be skewed if only published studies are included, as these are more likely to report positive findings.
Heterogeneity: Differences in study design, populations, and interventions can make it challenging to combine results meaningfully.
What is a systematic review?
Systematic reviews aim to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of the scientific literature on a particular topic. They follow a standardized methodology, which involves defining a research question, identifying relevant studies, critically evaluating their quality, and synthesizing the findings. This method makes sure the conclusions are based on the best and most complete evidence, which is why systematic reviews are super important in areas like medicine and public health. They help people make better decisions based on solid facts.
Advantages of systematic review
Comprehensive summary: Systematic reviews synthesize all relevant research, providing a thorough overview of a topic.
Minimized bias: They use rigorous methods to ensure reliability and reduce the risk of bias in the findings.
Limitations of systematic review
Time and resource-intensive: Conducting a systematic review requires significant time, expertise, and resources.
Dependent on available research: The quality and scope of the review are limited by the availability and reliability of existing studies.
What is a Randomized Control Trial (RCT)?
An RCT is a study that tests how effective a treatment or intervention is by randomly dividing participants into groups. One group (the control) gets standard care or a placebo, while the other (the experimental group) receives the treatment being studied. Randomization makes the groups similar, reducing bias and improving reliability. Blinding, where participants and/or researchers don’t know which group is which, further reduces bias. RCTs are commonly used in medicine and public health to understand cause-effect relationships and support evidence-based decisions.
Advantages of RCT
Minimizes bias: Randomization and blinding reduce selection and performance bias, making results more reliable.
High-quality evidence: RCTs are considered the most robust method for determining the efficacy of interventions.
Limitations of RCT
Resource-intensive: Conducting RCTs requires significant time, funding, and expertise.
Limited generalizability: Results may not always apply to broader populations due to the specific participant pool.
What is a Non-RCT?
In a non-RCT, participants are assigned to either an intervention group (which receives the treatment being studied) or a control group (which may receive no treatment, standard care, or a placebo). Unlike in RCTs, this assignment isn’t random and could be based on factors like the patient’s choice, clinical history, or other systematic methods. Non-RCTs are useful for gathering data in situations where ethical, financial, or logistical constraints make RCTs difficult.
Advantages of non-RCT
Real-world insights: Non-RCTs provide valuable data about how treatments work in everyday scenarios, especially with larger and more diverse populations.
Less time-consuming: Without the need for randomization, these studies are often faster and less expensive to conduct.
Limitations of non-RCT
Risk of bias: The lack of randomization can introduce biases, which may affect the reliability of the results.
Lower reliability: Non-RCTs are generally considered less reliable than RCTs for determining cause-and-effect relationships.
What is an Observational Study?
In an observational study, researchers observe the natural effects of a variable or condition without directly influencing it. These studies are often used in medicine, public health, and social sciences to understand patterns, relationships, or trends in real-life situations.
Advantages of observational study
Ethical and practical: They allow researchers to study situations that would be unethical or difficult to test experimentally, like the effects of harmful exposures.
Real-world relevance: Observational studies often reflect how things happen in everyday life, making their results widely applicable.
Limitations of observational study
Cannot prove cause and effect: These studies can suggest relationships but don’t establish causality because the researchers aren’t controlling variables.
Prone to bias: Results can be influenced by factors like participant selection or unmeasured variables that affect the outcomes.
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review collects and organizes information from different sources to give an overview of the topic. It helps researchers understand what’s already been studied, find areas that need more research, and avoid repeating work that has already been done.
Advantages of literature review
Comprehensive understanding: Literature reviews provide a complete summary of current research, helping readers and researchers understand the full scope of knowledge on a topic.
Identification of gaps: By analyzing existing studies, a literature review identifies areas that need further exploration, guiding future research efforts.
Limitations of literature review
Potential bias: Without explicit inclusion criteria, literature reviews may inadvertently favor certain studies or perspectives, limiting objectivity.
Time-consuming: Conducting a thorough and comprehensive review can require significant time and effort, particularly for broad or complex topics.
What is a Case Report?
Case reports document and analyze individual cases to highlight rare conditions or unexpected events. Case reports are considered the starting point of medical research, helping to identify new trends, generate hypotheses, and share clinical experiences.
Advantages of case report
Discoveries of new trends or diseases: Case reports often highlight rare conditions or new medical findings that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Educational value: They provide a platform for clinicians to share lessons learned, helping others recognize and understand uncommon conditions.
Limitations of case report
Limited generalizability: Since they focus on one or a few cases, the findings may not apply to larger populations.
Low-level evidence: Case reports are not based on systematic studies and cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships.
What is an Animal Study?
An animal study is a type of scientific experiment conducted on live animals to study diseases, test new treatments, or understand biological processes. These trials are often used in medical research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of interventions before they are tested on humans. While they play a crucial role in advancing science, animal trials must follow strict ethical and legal guidelines to minimize harm and ensure humane treatment of the animals involved.
Advantages of animal study
Preliminary testing for human safety: Animal trials help researchers identify potential risks and effects of treatments before they are tested on humans, reducing the likelihood of harm in early human trials.
Biological insights: They provide valuable information about how diseases develop and how treatments interact with living organisms, contributing to medical advancements.
Limitations of animal study
Limited applicability to humans: Differences between animals and humans can lead to results that do not always accurately predict how treatments will work in people.
Ethical concerns: The use of live animals in experiments raises significant ethical issues, as animals may experience pain, stress, or harm during the trials.
What is an In Vitro Study?
An in vitro study is a lab experiment that studies biological processes or tests treatments on cells, tissues, or organs outside a living body. They are essential for early research because they allow scientists to understand how treatments work in isolation before moving on to tests in live organisms (in vivo studies). While they provide valuable insights and are more ethical than some alternatives, they cannot fully replicate the complexity of a living body, so further testing is needed to confirm the results.
Advantages of in vitro study
Controlled environment: Allows researchers to precisely manage variables and repeat experiments for reliable results.
Ethical considerations: Reduces the need for live animal or human testing during early research stages.
Limitations of in vitro study
Lack of complexity: Cannot fully replicate how treatments interact within the complex environment of a living organism.
Short-Term observations: Typically focuses on immediate effects and may not reveal long-term outcomes.