JAMA article states Hospitals kill 137k per year.
Gary Null, an online nutritional supplement pusher, publishes Online excrement about how death is the fault of a the US system of Healthcare. Mr. Null has waved the following article as the banner of truth behind his blather.-dr
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/15/1200. The authors conclude that 76,000-137,000 hospitalized patients died in 1994 from reactions to drugs administered as prescribed. Don't you consider these figures alone to be shocking? And they don't include ADRs that hospitals don't recognize as such or classifed other ways to avoid lawsuits. They also don't include ADR deaths outside hospitals. If the FDA is doing so well, why does this happen?"
My reply:
Are you suggesting that 76,000 to 137,000 ADR deaths in 1994 are the result of the FDA's inability or failure to identify dangerous actions of drugs?
The authors conclude "While our results must be viewed with circumspection because of heterogeneity among studies and small biases in the samples, these data nevertheless suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue." Anyone can implicate anything as to why the numbers appear high.
At any rate, this has been an oft cited study by anyone who wants to make an argument against the medical establishment. It's used the same way an anti-Christian will pluck passages out of the Bible to discredit the entire religion.
No one should hang a hat on any numbers from this study without following the full course since it's publication:
Comment in:
JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1216-7.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1741; author reply 1743-4.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1741; author reply 1743-4.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1742-3; author reply 1743-4.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1742; author reply 1743-4.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1742; author reply 1743-4.
A google search will likely reveal many other credible comments made in the lay press.
I would also highly suggest a look at this critique of the study:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408052_print (access is free)
Kvasz M, Allen IE, Gordon MJ, Ro EY, Estok R, Olkin I, Ross SD. Adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A critique of a meta-analysis.MedGenMed. 2000 Apr 27;2(2):E3. PMID: 11104449
CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis was invalid because of heterogeneity of the studies. Most of these studies did not report the data needed for incidence calculations. The methodology used was seriously flawed, and no conclusions regarding ADR incidence rates in the hospitalized population in the United States should be made on the basis of the original meta-analysis.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/15/1200. The authors conclude that 76,000-137,000 hospitalized patients died in 1994 from reactions to drugs administered as prescribed. Don't you consider these figures alone to be shocking? And they don't include ADRs that hospitals don't recognize as such or classifed other ways to avoid lawsuits. They also don't include ADR deaths outside hospitals. If the FDA is doing so well, why does this happen?"
My reply:
Are you suggesting that 76,000 to 137,000 ADR deaths in 1994 are the result of the FDA's inability or failure to identify dangerous actions of drugs?
The authors conclude "While our results must be viewed with circumspection because of heterogeneity among studies and small biases in the samples, these data nevertheless suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue." Anyone can implicate anything as to why the numbers appear high.
At any rate, this has been an oft cited study by anyone who wants to make an argument against the medical establishment. It's used the same way an anti-Christian will pluck passages out of the Bible to discredit the entire religion.
No one should hang a hat on any numbers from this study without following the full course since it's publication:
Comment in:
JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1216-7.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1741; author reply 1743-4.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1741; author reply 1743-4.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1742-3; author reply 1743-4.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1742; author reply 1743-4.
JAMA. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1742; author reply 1743-4.
A google search will likely reveal many other credible comments made in the lay press.
I would also highly suggest a look at this critique of the study:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408052_print (access is free)
Kvasz M, Allen IE, Gordon MJ, Ro EY, Estok R, Olkin I, Ross SD. Adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A critique of a meta-analysis.MedGenMed. 2000 Apr 27;2(2):E3. PMID: 11104449
CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis was invalid because of heterogeneity of the studies. Most of these studies did not report the data needed for incidence calculations. The methodology used was seriously flawed, and no conclusions regarding ADR incidence rates in the hospitalized population in the United States should be made on the basis of the original meta-analysis.
posted by nawledge at
8:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home