Jdsk wrote:mjr wrote:Jdsk wrote:That doesn't follow. Recruitment of patients from general practice could include those who were also under the care of or who had ever seen someone in secondary care.
It does follow because they were "recruited opportunistically when they complained of symptoms during a consultation". If you are under hospital care, you complain to the hospital clinician about symptoms arising from their medication, not your GP.
That's a selective quotation, the other inclusion criterion was "or had stopped taking a statin in the last three years because of muscle symptoms".
...which if you click through to the Appendix 3, you'll see that was identified by searching GP records, not hospital records. I do check this stuff, you know!
PS: Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
You did it again.
Jdsk wrote:mjr wrote: I just wish people would stop apparently trying to prove that they work for everyone.
I'm not aware of anyone ever saying that. Do you have any examples?
Of course they don't say that, else the study would be criticised, but things like a study of muscle symptoms from statins that excludes loads of people who have had muscle symptoms from statins appears to be doing that.
PS: Primary prevention with stains is one of the textbook examples of how many people have to be treated to benefit one, eg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat
Yes, it makes nice neat textbook examples if you ignore loads of the disbenefits, such as non-cardio adverse events in that example.