The stats are presented in a bad and potentially sensationalist way.
"In the study of people ages 65 and older, 8.15% of women treated by female physicians died within 30 days, compared with 8.38% of women treated by male physicians.
Although the difference between the two groups seems small, the researchers say erasing the gap could save 5,000 women’s lives each year."
What is the margin of error here? Can it be larger than the difference?
“women and minority patients are up to 30% more likely to be misdiagnosed than white men.”
Women is one group and minority patients is the other, even though they obviously overlap. What of that is up to 30%? Women of some minority? Maybe that’s hispanic women, some of whom may have poor English and can’t communicate their symptoms properly (just an example of how it can go, not an assumption)
etc. etc.
Not saying article is wrong, just that we can’t conclude it’s right based on what we’re given.
smells like it could even be just a little bit of bias from the patient side even. It’s not like you’re forced to be treated by a certain doctor.
Regardless, a nearly .15% change is almost nothing, so who fucking knows why, could be the phase of the moon at the beginning of the study that caused it.
The stats are presented in a bad and potentially sensationalist way.
"In the study of people ages 65 and older, 8.15% of women treated by female physicians died within 30 days, compared with 8.38% of women treated by male physicians.
Although the difference between the two groups seems small, the researchers say erasing the gap could save 5,000 women’s lives each year."
What is the margin of error here? Can it be larger than the difference?
“women and minority patients are up to 30% more likely to be misdiagnosed than white men.”
Women is one group and minority patients is the other, even though they obviously overlap. What of that is up to 30%? Women of some minority? Maybe that’s hispanic women, some of whom may have poor English and can’t communicate their symptoms properly (just an example of how it can go, not an assumption)
etc. etc.
Not saying article is wrong, just that we can’t conclude it’s right based on what we’re given.
smells like it could even be just a little bit of bias from the patient side even. It’s not like you’re forced to be treated by a certain doctor.
Regardless, a nearly .15% change is almost nothing, so who fucking knows why, could be the phase of the moon at the beginning of the study that caused it.