4 thoughts on “Added drug for HER2 breast cancer?”

  1. A reader, who prefers to call and talk rather than post a comment, says they wanted more from the audio. I admit I am unsure how long the blog should be and to what extent I should talk about the studies. For example, he asked, why was the subgroup analysis not in the paper? Why did the doc not know this? Arn’t they the ones who should be the keepers of knowledge? Why do I have to come to a blog to find this out? Where do you find the information? Can you do a podcast or blog on what I want to know?

    These are great issues. My plan is that the blog should not be too long. My hope is that people comment, or ask questions so each discussion fosters learning.

    There, certainly, are many learning points from every case discussion, but I try to aim at one important point. The most important point from this person’s care is that a patient must know how they fit the studies so they can accurately assess if the information they are being given is correct. It was not in this case. That is why I started this site; to teach. However, I do think I need to provide more information, a sort of, Here’s how medicine should be practiced! I am considering a podcast for each case, and will provide more information about studies and finding information in future blogs. Thanks for comment.

    1. One literature searching strategy;

      use Google, BUT, end every search with — :pubmed.gov. This will take you to articles published on the best database for clinical evidence. I use only pubmed and pdq nci sites for information, but use Google to access them. Why? Because I think that is how most patients will search. Pubmed and PDQ NCI are the best repositories for information, in my experience.

      However, I only look at randomized controlled trials as they are the only trials that may have good enough information to present to a patient. I suggest you do this also. You can add the terms “randomized controlled trials” to any Google search also.

      However, the articles and abstracts of the articles are hard to read as journals are poor at presenting information in useful ways for patients. Statistical jargon abounds. That is why I hope this site helps interpret the studies and points out flaws in studies that may limit their value in your care.

      1. How about writing a no-nonsense, jargon-free article for AARP and similar organizations for us older folks that might like a step-by-step way to find trustworthy articles, and then what we should look for in those articles? Or maybe AARP would put a link to a podcast by you on this, or some kind of a MOOC you could star in? Sometimes we just need a genuine, authentic teacher rather than an authoritative source. You really could be that person for us all.

  2. Love the idea; read your comment and spurred me to send email to podcast team to propose a series on finding, using, and knowing what is worth reading. I will do what you ask; will send you a draft when time. I will post on my site in the learning section and also send to AARP. Thanks for your support.

    I struggled with if I should include research papers in these posts. Patients tell me that reading the papers is like reading an alien language. Research papers are not written for “people”. I was always frustrated with journals as I thought they should exist only to give information to patients, not docs. That is why I revise a paper’s presentations of data to my table forma, and hope over time people learn a way to read/see information on benefit and harm. Keep pushing; I want to get better.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.