Throughout this class we have discussed how statistics
are used incorrectly. Thus, I thought it would be interesting to write about an
article that in my opinion has used statistics correctly and without a bias
manner (I’m not saying it is perfect. It would be nearly impossible to find a
100% accurate study.). Published last Friday in The Lancet was an incredible
article about how bathing is not only now a comfort for infants, but also a shield
of protection. The new study has found that bathing one’s baby in an antibacterial
soap will decrease his/her risk for bacteremia (an infection of the blood that
can be fatal). This study was performed in two intensive care units in each of five
hospitals. Because it was conducted in more than one hospital, I feel that the
researchers can generalize their findings for the larger baby population.
However, if this study would have been done in only one hospital, one could question
if their results were simply coincidence or the soap only worked in that one
hospital. Within these five hospitals, one unit would bath the babies with
normal soap, while the other unit would use cloths with chlorhexidine, a
commonly used antiseptic. Following this, the units switched bathing techniques
for six months. More than 4,000 babies were hospitalized in all units combine for
at least two days. The results of this study were that there was a 36%
reduction in the incidence of bacteremia within the babies that received the chlorhexidine.
Overall, this study was randomized, had a control group, as well as an
experimental group, making it a reasonable study to believe. However, after
some thought, I wondered if these results could truly be accurate. Because this
study was only done on children in the hospital, it may have had positive
affects because the children were already sick. I think for this study to be
complete, one would have to also do this study on healthy babies. After this, I
think that the study could be an example of a “good” study that has a
reasonable conclusion.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/baths-offer-babies-protection/?ref=researchhttp://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2812%2970322-5/fulltext
I also wrote this because I felt that there wasn't a bias within the study, something that we don't see in "The Mismeasure of Man".
ReplyDeleteI agree that there does not appear to be bias in the study. What is interesting though, is that the study actually looked at several different bacterial infections. They did not find any reduction in several forms of infection (including Staph). There were two types of bacterial infections that were reduced, and that is what the NY Times reported. It would be interesting to know how common these particular bacterial infections are. You are right to question whether the study implies anything about whether parents should bathe their babies in antibacterial soap at home, based on a study performed in hospitals.
ReplyDelete