REVIEW OF MEDSCAPE ARTICLES
(Posted 2011-08-03 12:35:20 by ArchPaladin)

I came across two interesting articles on Medscape [
http://www.medscape.com/ ] [medscape.com] today.

The first was a review on the pharmacotherapy of fibromyalgia [
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/745907 ] [medscape.com].  What I found
most interesting was the discussion and conclusion of the article.  The
purpose of reviewing the studies they did was to expose the direction the
field is moving in, which is primarily to develop better drugs for pain
management, and to improve the treatment plan process.  Note the words I
chose - pain _management_.  No interest there in figuring out how to reset
central sensitization.  It's like they aren't even trying to cure.  They
certainly don't express a desire to do so in the review.

The second article was on objective response rates [
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/746692?src=mp&spon=17 ] [medscape.com].
 They give an example study of two different radiologists reviewing x-rays
taken 15 minutes apart.  The discrepancy in measurement and diagnosis for
x-rays that are effectively the same is reasonable, but the implications
they draw from this when the timespan is increased is insightful.  If
measurements of a tumor size differ over x-rays 15 minutes apart then its a
measurement problem, but if measurements differ over x-rays taken 6-8
months apart then its cancer progression.  I wonder: how seriously do
doctors take into account the likelihood of discrepancy?

I think that we should approach every field of living with as much wonder
and childlike open-mindedness as possible.  (Doesn't mean I actually do
this all the time, but I think we should anyway.)  Approaches to medicine
and health and the potential for healing should be no different.  Once we
pin things down rigidly we can generate a lot of callousness and hubris.

--------

There are no comments on this post.