[This is timeless. It doesn't require any knowledge of mathematics or statistics (except "mean" in "regression to the mean" i.e. the average). The abstract doesn't really do it justice - it covers some cognitive fallacies and generally a lot more than what is in the abstract. Doesn't require much knowledge of biology, that I recall]
Free full text: http://www.chiromt.com/content/17/1/10
*I gave each sentence its own paragraph
Free full text: http://www.chiromt.com/content/17/1/10
Why do ineffective treatments seem helpful? A brief review.
Chiropr Osteopat. 2009 Oct 12;17:10. doi: 10.1186/1746-1340-17-10.
Hartman SE.
Source
Department of Anatomy, College of Osteopathic Medicine, University of New England, Biddeford, Maine 04005, USA. shartman@une.edu
Abstract*
After any therapy, when symptoms improve, healthcare providers (and
patients) are tempted to award credit to treatment.
Over time, a particular treatment can seem so undeniably helpful that scientific verification of efficacy is judged an inconvenient waste of time and resources.
Unfortunately, practitioners' accumulated, day-to-day, informal impressions of diagnostic reliability and clinical efficacy are of limited value.
To help clarify why even treatments entirely lacking in direct effect can seem helpful, I will explain why real signs and symptoms often improve, independent of treatment.
Then, I will detail quirks of human perception, interpretation, and memory that often make symptoms seem improved, when they are not.
I conclude that healthcare will grow to full potential only when judgments of clinical efficacy routinely are based in properly scientific, placebo-controlled, outcome analysis.
PMID: 19822008 [PubMed] PMCID: PMC2770065
*I gave each sentence its own paragraph