“To me it was obvious, we can’t improve survival unless we test new treatments against established ones.”
- Dr. Scott Ramsey, M.D. in the New York Times.
Looking through a First Aid book the first few times may be daunting: in almost 400 or so pages, the book tries to compile the whole nine yards about the human body. And in order to compress all that information, the information comes in quick-n'-dirty tabular form, where usually the information can only be understood if school had taught that concept properly (at least with the way I studied... so I thought).
But amidst this compression, I think sometimes us med students neglect to acknowledge how much effort and time actually goes into the conclusions that is now common knowledge for medical students. At a point, what we sometimes think now is a typical fact, was previously a conclusion that was came upon due to a series of clinical trials or scientific experiments. Who knows how many studies led toward a single line of "common symptoms" that us clinicians (with the MDs, DOs, and others) need to know.
In the series called the "Forty Years War" in the New York Times, I read a few weeks ago about how getting cancer patients to participate in studies has been quite a fight. From a patient's point of view, initially, the costs mount up quite well: the treatments aren't guaranteed to work, there might be risky side effects, and there's quite a deal of "red tape" and extra meetings that the patient needs to participate in order for the researchers to gather data.
For instance, in one of the latest New England Journal of Medicine articles that I've read, 3200 patients were selected for a study. Even before the actual treatments and data collection were underway, 3059 of them were already excluded (everything from not meeting minimum patient criterium to not even wanting to be a part of the study). That left 141 people to represent the thousands of people with similar conditions in the study. That's quite a small sample, but the researchers did the best with what they had.
In the world of research, the smaller the sample size, most probably the less powerful the findings. I don't know we could exactly fix this problem though... the benefits are there, but I can definitely empathize with the patient, and their concerns. However, they are the ones that hold the power towards the progression of treatment in the world of medicine.
Using lab animals just isn't the same as using good old 100% human beings.
Source: The New York Times & The New England Journal of Medicine