Ah, thanks, Bill, that helps. Now I see what you mean. The Internet also makes it easier for mass-rumors to be started. Instead of saying, "I heard", I will post the link : )
“...Usually, when I do research, I go by personal accounts, and if there is only one, I take it with a grain of salt, but if there are a bunch of people saying it, I take it more as a statistic...”
The problem with repeating anecdotal (personal) experience of others in a discussion group like this is that it tends to perpetuate rumors; some perhaps useful, but most generally aren’t. It doesn’t matter if 1000 patients *feel* something, it doesn’t necessarily validate fact.
Even personal opinions of experts such as doctors are considered rather weak evidence in medical decision making; here’s a list of levels of evidence used by the UK National Health Service:
Level A: Consistent Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial, cohort study, all or none (see note below), clinical decision rule validated in different populations.
Level B: Consistent Retrospective Cohort, Exploratory Cohort, Ecological Study, Outcomes Research, case-control study; or extrapolations from level A studies.
Level C: Case-series study or extrapolations from level B studies.
Level D: Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or first principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine
If you’re quoting anecdotal evidence, please clearly state so. If you’re quoting peer-reviewed, published data it really helps to provide links/citations.
Taking these steps greatly increases your credibility as well as that of the site.
“...Now, the research study imfo is different, because then, we have to look at how many people were in the study,and also, more importantly, what research co. is putting on the study. If it's only one study, which is small, then my Doctor always seems to take the imfo with a grain of salt...”
Of course; small, pilot studies don’t carry much statistical power; you’re doctor is probably wise not applying much weight to data like that. Not many of us in here are trained in medical statistics, so it’s challenging to correctly interpret data. Nonetheless, it’s helpful to include links to published material; forum members can then sort through the study docs and arrive at their own conclusion.
--Bill
2007 is very old when related to hep C and triple therapy wasn't even approved until May 2011.
Doing SOC, I never experienced the rash mentioned by those on triple therapy.
Thanks for the link.
Aha, gotcha..back on my mac..here's the link...it's alphabetical, so just scroll down to "S" and look for shaving. The website is out dated (2007) and written by 3 women, none Doctors, mind you, but I thought it was a pretty cool lil website http://www.hepcsurvivalguide.org/comboguide.htm
would love to see the links! that would be great
One more thing, those of us who've been here sometime, have seen some real lulus show up here saying all kinds of silly unsubstantiated things.
Links help us distinguish reality from someone's misconceptions.