The Value and Relevance of Quality STUDIES... -How can they best serve us..??

I didnt realy want to start another thread on "studies", but it was a bit off topic to add to an existing one.. and I appreciate many of us may be about done with topic for a while..

-Sorry if this has been covered overnight, or elsewhere...

 

Not criticising, Just trying to get my head around the value of studies, or maybe where they fit in to it all..

 

I know this is very simplistic and general, But the sceptic (for want of a better word) in me keeps wondering how these (recently posted), -or any studys (any viewpiont), match or relate to the peramiters of the experiences we find here on BB... Assuming we have a higher instance or degree of sensitivity or complexity, (-say polly drugging for instance, that may be an "exclusion" for a study), -than what the general  Benzo Cessation population might have...

 

I cant get thoughts out well today, so forgive me..

 

But what I mean is how the subject pool of a study matches the somewhat "select" (or maybe "un-select) pool that we find on BB.. I know we only have what we have to work with, and its up to an individual to assess relevance to themselves... But as an example, with the link posted on another thread, I found it hard to accertain the "selection" or "follow up" parameters (though I assume they are buried in there somewhere)... I then wondered if it isnt to easy for studies to naturally/unintentionally support a preconceived view point amongst the vastness of Benzo Withdrawal Syndrome (BWS) simply by exclusion of scope..??

 

Not that this is unique to studies vs the ancidotal environ we find here on BB, though possibly in a polarised format (Everything is on the table).. I know we all have to discern the difference or relevance of information as suits our personal situation, But I wonder if even the most accurate study on any aspect of BWS holds the weight of being definative or balanced in the bigger picture...??

 

Im all for good studies, and we need more, but how much weight can an individual put in them when making their own BWS decisions..?? Where do they fit..?? How do we factor in our personal (potential) variance factor..??

Is a valid study that says the worst is over in 4 whatevers, worth any more than than a group of Buddies sharing their post jump experiences...??

 

I appreciate that this is just one aspect of a study's value, but if we are adding them to our toolbox, we should know their value and how to use them..??

Perhaps it comes down to the law of averages vs the risk of being an outlayer...??

 

I appreciate any thoughts, possibly because I have been in a situation where a multitude of research suggested a course of action that just didnt fit my then unknown specifics... Had I been on a forum similar to this the outcome may well have been avoided...

 

Sorry, big question with probably only grey answers....

 

Thanks...

(And this is about academic as I get... -promise.. )

 

Yes Can't very interesting topic l think you have actually brought up a lot of questions which l have been wondering for a long time.

  I don't know if people doing the study have preconceived ideas,having said that l am not convinced anything is unbiased,however I imagine people reading them may well have.

    Will be interesting to see what is said on this matter.

Yes Can't very interesting topic l think you have actually brought up a lot of questions which l have been wondering for a long time.

  I don't know if people doing the study have preconceived ideas,having said that l am not convinced anything is unbiased,however I imagine people reading them may well have.

    Will be interesting to see what is said on this matter.

Thanks Stut, I realy had trouble with wording it right...

 

By preconceived ideas I meant say, for example, They looked at it from an addiction rather than dependance way, and this led to a final follow up at 3weeks medicine free.. which might give the conclusion that just about no one heals, and most get worse..!! -not true...

...or that the data group of a study came from rapid detox facility's, leading to a different result than say slow tapering...

If studies were my language, this would probably be a non issue... But im wondering how valid is my scepticism of something that is potentially so valuable...??

I just keep going "but what if..??"

 

Thanks, and yes, lets see what brighter minds feel about it...

 

Thanks Cant for your post. Gives one pause for thought...., and nice to read your perspective. 💖 Peace and Healing.  

Thanks Cant for your post. Gives one pause for thought...., and nice to read your perspective. 💖 Peace and Healing.  

Thanks BG.. -not sure I trust my perspective on this..

 

Thanks Cant for your post. Gives one pause for thought...., and nice to read your perspective. 💖 Peace and Healing.  

Thanks BG.. -not sure I trust my perspective on this..

Your words are clear and concise and what you are thinking, don't doubt your thoughts.

Can't l agree with your wording and your question is a valid one.l do believe you will get a lot of feed back regarding this l hope it is clear and concise as you have been.

Don't doubt this you are as bright as any here.

I am wondering if it would be worth setting up a survey to try to collect more comprehensive info?

 

I think it would be useful to have info on what drugs people have taken and on a much wider range of symptoms than is generally listed.

 

Also more space for extra info for qualitative info?

 

 

BB is NOT a randomized sample, and is NOT representative of the population as a whole.  So any data or conclusions drawn from a study at BB would only be valid for that population.  You cannot generalize from a unique population to the general population.

I am aware of that!

 

I recently read Catherine Pittman’s survey on BBs.

 

I would want it to be broader than just BBs but it would still, obviously, be aimed at those having problems - those that don’t are not online trying to deal with it.

 

That is okay as long as it is made clear what population the data is collected from.

 

 

That is okay as long as it is made clear what population the data is collected from.

 

One thing you may be referring to is the difference between efficacy and effectiveness.  While many RCTs show efficacious results in a clinical setting, these do not necessarily translate into the community (or "real world") setting; efficacious may not mean effective.  Some softer sciences investigate effectiveness through randomly administered surveys but it becomes intractable to collect and control for everything that may happen and that exists in the real world setting.  Clinical settings offer a very controlled and precise environment to allow for more certain answers under more certain conditions.  This often why many refer to research as a process that involves reproducibility under different conditions in order to show proof or causation.  There may be investigator biases that are weeded out through the process as well.

 

There are all those other aspects of research too that help ensure your results are valid and generalizable such as correctly sampling from the population, applying the correct methods, controlling for enough information to ensure your results are not a result of other phenomena, correctly interpreting the results, etc.  A whole lot of different types of biases can creep in with these aspects of the research process too.

 

Some researchers are not aware of many of these things.  Many are and try to handle them with more robust design and stricter adherence to study design, etc.  A lot gets through but just about everybody agrees it's a process that takes a lot of time and effort to understand what's happening.

Yes, to another aspect of your post too.  I think you might be referring to a type of ecological fallacy.  That individual factor will always be there.  What's good for everybody on the whole is not necessarily good for every individual.  Some studies can be designed for individual inference while others are more relevant toward the population or group being studied.

 

Here's a blurb on wikipedia that may be of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy#Choosing_between_aggregate_and_individual_inference

I am wondering if it would be worth setting up a survey to try to collect more comprehensive info?

 

I think it would be useful to have info on what drugs people have taken and on a much wider range of symptoms than is generally listed.

 

Also more space for extra info for qualitative info?

Thanks Ajusta,

 

This is a current surver, as listed in the "News" section...

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=211922.0

 

It does have an open box for additional info..

 

But I guess the problem is how to format statistical relavance from unformated info...

I always feel surveys never quite ask the tight questions for ME..

-I wonder if everyone feels similar, and it all evens out in the end...??

 

 

BB is NOT a randomized sample, and is NOT representative of the population as a whole.  So any data or conclusions drawn from a study at BB would only be valid for that population.  You cannot generalize from a unique population to the general population.

 

Quite right,

And thats my problem, I guess... How well does it work in reverse.. From the general population to a unique population..??

Logic might then say studies are of little to no use to this community, and we are left guessing how we as an individual might possibly compare?? Which brings us back to "Ajustas inhouse studies" being all that is "taylored" enough to be of use to its own population.. -a slippery slope of ever reducing parameters perhaps,,,??

 

But thats not a conclusion that im yet prepared to draw...

 

Thanks for input...

 

 

 

Yes, to another aspect of your post too.  I think you might be referring to a type of ecological fallacy.  That individual factor will always be there.  What's good for everybody on the whole is not necessarily good for every individual.  Some studies can be designed for individual inference while others are more relevant toward the population or group being studied.

 

Here's a blurb on wikipedia that may be of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy#Choosing_between_aggregate_and_individual_inference

Thanks also Seltzerer,

I appreciate the time and link, It did help put some clarity to the pieces in play..

 

Perhaps it will simply come down to finding the right (specific) study for a specific question.. The broader the question, the less relevant the answer...??

 

Hmmm...

 

Thanks mate...

 

 

I am wondering if it would be worth setting up a survey to try to collect more comprehensive info?

 

I think it would be useful to have info on what drugs people have taken and on a much wider range of symptoms than is generally listed.

 

Also more space for extra info for qualitative info?

Thanks Ajusta,

 

This is a current surver, as listed in the "News" section...

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=211922.0

 

It does have an open box for additional info..

 

But I guess the problem is how to format statistical relavance from unformated info...

I always feel surveys never quite ask the tight questions for ME..

-I wonder if everyone feels similar, and it all evens out in the end...??

 

 

Yes, I’ve filled that in but it was difficult because I was on Benzo and Z drug, tapered benzo, CT’d Z drug and now retapering Benzo.

 

I did explain it at the end but my answers throughout were not accurate because I couldn’t answer based on my actual situation.

 

I also added a lot of extra stuff at the end but would have liked a longer list of symptoms set out in catergories with a box after each category to add extra ones if necessary.

 

I know this is very complex and people have to be able to analyse the collected data at the end and adding more options makes it much harder.

 

I expect you have seen Catherine Pittman’s PP which includes survey on BBs.

 

Very useful but , for me, does not represent the wide range of symptoms or the severity and toll it takes on people’s lives.

 

Maybe the only way you can really get that across is case histories?

 

Or perhaps a study that focuses more on narrative? Lots of data and lots of quotes from individuals.

 

I suppose I have always been more interested in phenomenological studies.

 

It’s hard to truely represent both the amount of people experiencing this and give a valid account of the traumatising experiences of people.

 

 

 

 

Since things have gotten pretty esoteric here, I will just throw in one more term to add to the confusion There was a study two or three years ago that claimed certain types of cancers were more likely to be not effected by environmental and lifestyle factors since the chances of getting them was based on stochastic factors that would mutate a gene given a certain number of cell divisions Stochastic was a kind of a new word for me then and am still not sure I have a complete handle on the concept There is the stochastic calculus which seems implies an innate randomness to existence itself. Yet is that not a problem for a deterministic universe

 

I always get into trouble when these subjects come up

I am wondering if it would be worth setting up a survey to try to collect more comprehensive info?

 

I think it would be useful to have info on what drugs people have taken and on a much wider range of symptoms than is generally listed.

 

Also more space for extra info for qualitative info?

Thanks Ajusta,

 

This is a current surver, as listed in the "News" section...

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=211922.0

 

It does have an open box for additional info..

 

But I guess the problem is how to format statistical relavance from unformated info...

I always feel surveys never quite ask the tight questions for ME..

-I wonder if everyone feels similar, and it all evens out in the end...??

 

 

Yes, I’ve filled that in but it was difficult because I was on Benzo and Z drug, tapered benzo, CT’d Z drug and now retapering Benzo.

 

I did explain it at the end but my answers throughout were not accurate because I couldn’t answer based on my actual situation.

 

I also added a lot of extra stuff at the end but would have liked a longer list of symptoms set out in catergories with a box after each category to add extra ones if necessary.

 

I know this is very complex and people have to be able to analyse the collected data at the end and adding more options makes it much harder.

 

I expect you have seen Catherine Pittman’s PP which includes survey on BBs.

 

Very useful but , for me, does not represent the wide range of symptoms or the severity and toll it takes on people’s lives.

 

Maybe the only way you can really get that across is case histories?

 

Or perhaps a study that focuses more on narrative? Lots of data and lots of quotes from individuals.

 

I suppose I have always been more interested in phenomenological studies.

 

It’s hard to truely represent both the amount of people experiencing this and give a valid account of the traumatising experiences of people.

Yes, Formatted Case Studys might be an avanue... -Maybe BB, and its search bar is in that direction...?

 

Not sure if I have seen that PP..?? It kinda rings a dull bell...

-If you have a link handy... -feel free...

 

Thanks again..

 

Since things have gotten pretty esoteric here, I will just throw in one more term to add to the confusion There was a study two or three years ago that claimed certain types of cancers were more likely to be not effected by environmental and lifestyle factors since the chances of getting them was based on stochastic factors that would mutate a gene given a certain number of cell divisions Stochastic was a kind of a new word for me then and am still not sure I have a complete handle on the concept There is the stochastic calculus which seems implies an innate randomness to existence itself. Yet is that not a problem for a deterministic universe

 

I always get into trouble when these subjects come up

Im not sure about trouble..?? -I didnt realy understand your post, sorry...

So long as it falls within BB's Rules and Mission, I cant see a problem...

 

 

 

 

Im not sure about trouble..?? -I didnt realy understand your post, sorry...

So long as it falls within BB's Rules and Mission, I cant see a problem...

 

I guess I consider myself pretty anti doctor and am concerned that reading the rules might cause me to be overly critical of such rules Maybe not

 

 

Im not sure about trouble..?? -I didnt realy understand your post, sorry...

So long as it falls within BB's Rules and Mission, I cant see a problem...

 

I guess I consider myself pretty anti doctor and am concerned that reading the rules might cause me to be overly critical of such rules Maybe not

lol, I dont think they are open for debate or critique..!!

But the topic of how to best use studys should be pretty safe...