- Feb 27, 2016
- 7,319
- 9,223
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial
"Parachute use compared with a backpack control did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when used by participants jumping from aircraft in this first randomized evaluation of the intervention. This largely resulted from our ability to only recruit participants jumping from stationary aircraft on the ground. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials evaluating their effectiveness could selectively enroll individuals with a lower likelihood of benefit, thereby diminishing the applicability of trial results to routine practice. Therefore, although we can confidently recommend that individuals jumping from small stationary aircraft on the ground do not require parachutes, individual judgment should be exercised when applying these findings at higher altitudes."
Brilliant new study in the British Medical Journal, showing some of the limits and biases in medical studies. They did a study on parachutes, but could only enroll people when the backpack control only jumped from a stationary plane at 0.6 m. By normal practice, the recommendation should be parachutes are of no benefit, if this were say a blood pressure tablet or something. It is a good critique of those extrapolating from small studies with very different parameters, to suggest clinical practice elsewhere. It is also great fun, as much as the famous study of disappearing teaspoons done in Australia:
The case of the disappearing teaspoons: longitudinal cohort study of the displacement of teaspoons in an Australian research institute
"Parachute use compared with a backpack control did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when used by participants jumping from aircraft in this first randomized evaluation of the intervention. This largely resulted from our ability to only recruit participants jumping from stationary aircraft on the ground. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials evaluating their effectiveness could selectively enroll individuals with a lower likelihood of benefit, thereby diminishing the applicability of trial results to routine practice. Therefore, although we can confidently recommend that individuals jumping from small stationary aircraft on the ground do not require parachutes, individual judgment should be exercised when applying these findings at higher altitudes."
Brilliant new study in the British Medical Journal, showing some of the limits and biases in medical studies. They did a study on parachutes, but could only enroll people when the backpack control only jumped from a stationary plane at 0.6 m. By normal practice, the recommendation should be parachutes are of no benefit, if this were say a blood pressure tablet or something. It is a good critique of those extrapolating from small studies with very different parameters, to suggest clinical practice elsewhere. It is also great fun, as much as the famous study of disappearing teaspoons done in Australia:
The case of the disappearing teaspoons: longitudinal cohort study of the displacement of teaspoons in an Australian research institute
Last edited:
