argument51 [0710G 戴三个表冲刺小组] 第5次作业

pinuoUID: 2328081

提纲：   
    1.两个Group的病人情况不一定相同有没有可比性，病情是否一样，病人的age，sex是否一样
    2.也许第二个Group的病人本来就比第一组Severe，没有rule out other factors可能导致第二组病人康复慢，
      第一组快。
    3.或许第一组的人在专业运动医学的医生知道下，多做了运动，有助于康复。
    4.即使有用，Sideeffect of antibiotics也应该take into consideration，并不是所以的病人都可以开的
      ，有些过敏的病人，即使康复慢也不能吃抗生素。
     
    TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

WORDS: 532          TIME: 00:44:31          DATE: 2007-7-30 12:10:22

In a medical newsletter the author recommended that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The recommendation is base on a hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients form heling quickly after severe muscle strain. And the author use a study of two groups of patients to prove  the hypothesis. In the study, the patients of first group beiing treated by a doctor tho specializes in sports medicine took anitibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, and the patients of second group being treated by a general physician were given sugar pills which the patients believed were antibiotics. The result is that the recuperation time of first group was 40 percent quicker on average than typicaly expected, while the average recuperation time of those in second group was not significantly reduced. At the first glance, the author's recommendation seems compelling,   after analyze, I find the conclusiton was based on several assumptons, thus made it undefensible.

First, the final recommendation is based on rightness the hypothesis, which in turn relies on the assumption that the study of two groups of patients can tell the different effect between take the antibiotics and not . But the author failed to provide sufficient evidence that the patients of two groups are comparatable. Whose age, gender. It is highly possible the patient in the first group are younger than those in the second group on average, make them have a shorter recuperation time. Even the author substantiate the ongoing assumption, it bring about another even critical asssumption that the injuries of the patients of two groups are comparatable. If the patients of second group suffer from more severe injure than those in the  first, then the shorter recuperation time cannot be attribute to the effect of antibiotics.

Second, even the patients of two groups share the same injure and other factors, without ruling out other factors help the patients of first group recover faster than those in the second group, I still cannot be convinced that it is antibiotics that make the difference. May be the patients of first group was introdued some extra exercise by their doctor who specializes in sports medicine, which help them recover faster, compared with the patients who just accept the general treatment.

Thirdly, even the antibiotics were proved to be the key factor which help the patient have a shorter recuperation time than those in the second group, the recommend still not always resonable to prescribe antibiotics to all the patients whos are diagnosed with muscle strain whith the evidence the antibiotics's sideeffect will not affect all the patients to use them safely. For some patient who can not use antibiotics, a longer recuperation will be more acceptable than the risk of taking anibiotics.

In sum, the recommendion was based on several assumption, thus render it questionable. To convince me accept the recommendation, the author must provide evidence that the injures of patients of two groups are comparable, and no other factors influence the different recuperation time. Finally, the author must provide clear evidence that the antibiotics will not carry any sideeffects which will be harmful for some patients.