<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why don&#8217;t we just put statins in the water supply and be done with it?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.journalclub.org/2005/05/30/n60/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.journalclub.org/2005/05/30/n60</link>
	<description>Comments on the medical literature</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:30:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: medmusings</title>
		<link>http://www.journalclub.org/2005/05/30/n60/comment-page-1#comment-2454</link>
		<dc:creator>medmusings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2005 06:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.journalclub.org/?p=60#comment-2454</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;links for 2005-05-31&lt;/strong&gt;

 Medpundit: more on why the case-control NEJM study purportedly supporting decreased risk of colorectal cancer by taking statins is hogwash: lack of matching of ethnic group, differences in # askenazi jews &quot; if the researchers really wanted to see if ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>links for 2005-05-31</strong></p>
<p> Medpundit: more on why the case-control NEJM study purportedly supporting decreased risk of colorectal cancer by taking statins is hogwash: lack of matching of ethnic group, differences in # askenazi jews &#8221; if the researchers really wanted to see if &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neuro</title>
		<link>http://www.journalclub.org/2005/05/30/n60/comment-page-1#comment-2452</link>
		<dc:creator>Neuro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2005 22:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.journalclub.org/?p=60#comment-2452</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The problem with case-controls</strong></p>
<p>Dr. Michael Jacobson has an excellent post on a recent Israeli case-control study on statins and colorectal cancer that&#8217;s worth reading in full:</p>
<p>Why don’t we just put statins in the water supply and be done with it?<br />
In last week’s NEJM is a ca&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clinical Cases and Images</title>
		<link>http://www.journalclub.org/2005/05/30/n60/comment-page-1#comment-2451</link>
		<dc:creator>Clinical Cases and Images</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2005 20:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.journalclub.org/?p=60#comment-2451</guid>
		<description>This new study adds more to the Polypill concept published in BMJ in 2003 - everybody over 50 should be on ABCDE (ASA, Beta blocker, Cholesterol lowering statin, Diuretic, Enzyme inhibitor - ACEi, and Folate).

Estrogen HRT was looking promising for a number of indications before the large RCTs were done. And then we had to call all our female patients to stop the &quot;magic pill&quot;. 

This is the Tamhane&#039;s law (named after one of my colleagues): a new study is out and then the doctors run in its direction as fast as they can, prescribing the new drug left and right, Then, several years later, another new study shows no benefit or even harm. Then, the doctors run just as fast in the opposite direction. (Have a mental picture of a flock of sheep).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This new study adds more to the Polypill concept published in BMJ in 2003 &#8211; everybody over 50 should be on ABCDE (ASA, Beta blocker, Cholesterol lowering statin, Diuretic, Enzyme inhibitor &#8211; ACEi, and Folate).</p>
<p>Estrogen HRT was looking promising for a number of indications before the large RCTs were done. And then we had to call all our female patients to stop the &#8220;magic pill&#8221;. </p>
<p>This is the Tamhane&#8217;s law (named after one of my colleagues): a new study is out and then the doctors run in its direction as fast as they can, prescribing the new drug left and right, Then, several years later, another new study shows no benefit or even harm. Then, the doctors run just as fast in the opposite direction. (Have a mental picture of a flock of sheep).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

