Filly's 16th Law
There are those who will try to “number” you to death. Many researchers and pundits are enamored of “numbers.” They show you the statistics. Don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to tell you that statistics are meaningless. Quite the contrary. What I am telling you is that statistical validation does not necessarily mean that it is useful diagnostically. If something is not statistically valid, it will not be useful. But the reverse is not true. Statistical validity does not prove clinical utility.
The classic example in my mind are those researchers who believe that isolated Down syndrome markers should be applied to low risk women.
Corollary: There are those that will try to convince you that if one number is good, two, three, or four numbers will be better (e.g., the Deepest Vertical Pocket for amniotic fluid estimation versus the Amniotic Fluid Index).
The classic example in my mind are those researchers who believe that isolated Down syndrome markers should be applied to low risk women.
Corollary: There are those that will try to convince you that if one number is good, two, three, or four numbers will be better (e.g., the Deepest Vertical Pocket for amniotic fluid estimation versus the Amniotic Fluid Index).