John Mandrola

1 week ago | sensible-med.com | John Mandrola

One of the most common and valid criticisms of a randomized clinical trial is external validity—or generalizability. The point of any RCT is that we can apply the results to a patient we see in the office. A trial that recruits highly selected (perfect) patients is hard to apply to the “regular” everyday patient. A classic example is the DanGer-Shock trial of the microaxial flow pump in patients with cardiogenic shock.

2 weeks ago | medscape.com | John Mandrola

Please note that the text below is not a full transcript and has not been copyedited. For more insight and commentary on these stories, subscribe to the This Week in Cardiology podcast, download the Medscape app or subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast provider. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only.

2 weeks ago | sensible-med.com | Vinay Prasad |John Mandrola |Adam Cifu

The most common question we get asked is: is there a course on how to become better at critically reading medical research. Here it is!This is the fourth of 9 videos that we recorded as part of a course on clinical appraisal, and there will be many more to come. This and future videos will be made available as a thank you to paid subscribers.

2 weeks ago | sensible-med.com | John Mandrola

Kidney disease does not get the attention it deserves. Heart disease and cancer suck up most of the attention. The kidney is complex (without a simple clogged-pipe frame). Kidney disease progresses slowly, often with overlap from heart disease. But end-stage kidney disease requiring dialysis affects more than 2 million people, and patients on dialysis have 5-year survival rates of only 50%. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) if left untreated may progress to ESKD.

2 weeks ago | sensible-med.com | John Mandrola

Saturday’s post from Dr. Holland Kaplan regarding clean drinking water stirred controversy. Many of the commenters disliked the post. I received some negative feedback. I disagreed with the argument as well. My push back centers on the idea that removing fluoride from the drinking water is a surrogate for being against clean drinking water. It is not. I know very little about environmental exposure science. The fluoride decision, however, does not require content knowledge.