|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01378 am a22002053u 4500 |
| 001 |
124305 |
| 042 |
|
|
|a dc
|
| 100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Doty, Erik
|e author
|
| 100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Medical Engineering & Science
|e contributor
|
| 700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Stone, David J
|e author
|
| 700 |
1 |
0 |
|a McCague, Ned
|e author
|
| 700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Celi, Leo Anthony G.
|e author
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Counterintuitive results from observational data: a case study and discussion
|
| 260 |
|
|
|b BMJ,
|c 2020-03-25T03:45:19Z.
|
| 856 |
|
|
|z Get fulltext
|u https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124305
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a The finding of an association between increased pain and improved outcomes was unexpected and clinically counterintuitive. In an increasingly digitised age of medical big data, such results are likely to become more common. The reliability of such counterintuitive results must be carefully examined. We suggest several issues to consider in this analytic process. If the data is determined to be valid, consideration must then be made towards alternative explanations for the counterintuitive results observed. Such results may in fact indicate that current clinical knowledge is incomplete or not have been firmly based on empirical evidence and function to inspire further research into the factors involved.
|
| 546 |
|
|
|a en
|
| 655 |
7 |
|
|a Article
|
| 773 |
|
|
|t 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026447
|
| 773 |
|
|
|t BMJ open
|
