←back to thread

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

(arstechnica.com)
352 points keithly | 3 comments | 14 Oct 24 21:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kart23 ◴[14 Oct 24 22:24 UTC] No.41842758[source]▶
Isn't flossing not supported by science also, but all the news articles said you should keep flossing?
replies(11): >>41842896 #>>41842925 #>>41843072 #>>41843073 #>>41843193 #>>41843771 #>>41843835 #>>41844751 #>>41846373 #>>41848691 #>>41850301 #
lesuorac ◴[14 Oct 24 22:54 UTC] No.41843072[source]▶
Perhaps you'll find it useful that a double-blind study found no improvement in outcome from use of a parachute when jumping out of a helicopter.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

replies(3): >>41843112 #>>41843948 #>>41844155 #
1. hervature ◴[14 Oct 24 23:01 UTC] No.41843112[source]▶
That's not at all what that "study" says. It is a critique (in poor taste if you ask me) that everything does not require a double-blind study.
replies(2): >>41844172 #>>41848505 #
2. mlyle ◴[15 Oct 24 01:56 UTC] No.41844172[source]▶
> It is a critique (in poor taste if you ask me) that everything does not require a double-blind study.

I think the real point is that systemic reviews often will have a pretty tilted set of included studies, because they are influenced by what things researchers choose to study.

Indeed, you probably couldn't publish a study saying that parachutes work; it's not an interesting enough finding for publication. So the only stuff you'll find, in many cases, are studies that buck the prevailing wisdom.

3. marcosdumay ◴[15 Oct 24 13:41 UTC] No.41848505[source]▶
IMO, it's a critique on the "no study shows it exists, therefore it doesn't exist" attitude.

If you manage to do double-blind studies for every single piece of knowledge out there, kudos for you. There's nothing bad in this.

Anyway, it's on topic for several sidelines people are raising. But not on topic for the main article.