[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]


PS - To all the doctors out there: I have more respect for your profession than perhaps any other. You aren't statisticians, and that's just as well. After all, if you have to choose between studying stats tonight, or the best way to fix Chris's leg, stick with the surgery stuff. I'll understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the doctors I know understand bayesian implications.

Surgeons are trained to counsel about the risks of surgery. What we do is quote the published risk from research trials involving the procedure being performed.

It has become a type of folklore that only 10-20% of doctors understand specificity and sensitivity in medical tests. Now, all biostatistics classes start with the story about how doctors don't understand biostatistics. Then, most medical students pass the exam and proceed on to residency training, where there is daily review of medical literature and the statistical merit of this literature.

So, Chris is likely to do well and my sincerest well wishes are extended until he completely recovers from this ordeal.

As a bonus, it is likely that his surgeon tells the truth and understands statistics. Which is nice.

Aleo, you know I like and respect you. I have also learned a lot from you, and have publicly thanked you for that. But this post blows. It is not an accurate description of how most doctors think, nor is it an accurate assessment of the statistical sophistication of physicians trained in this era of evidence-based medicine.

Irieguy