7 ms·

Better to link the actual study rather than what a know-nothing hack has to say about it: https://mmd.iammonline.com/index.php/musmed/article/view/1111/710 http

by flave 10mo ago

Better to link the actual study rather than what a know-nothing hack has to say about it: https://mmd.iammonline.com/index.php/musmed/article/view/1111/710 https://mmd.iammonline.com/index.php/musmed/article/view/111... Nothing against the BBC but the most thoughtful journalist has all the scientific knowledge of Tarot Reader’s cat. Anyway, n=56 which is fine I guess but leaves loads of margin for error. Personally, I had a cystoscope and at the time had fancy health insurance so went to a bling London hospital and the surgeon insisted I listened to music - saying exactly what this article said. It lowers cortisol after, makes you less restless during and improves patient reported outcomes. You can look up what a cystoscope is, I elected to do it with a blocker rather than with a general anaesthetic. All I will say is that track Shadowboxin’ by GLA is now completely unlistenable for me!

comradesmith 10mo ago
That is so incredibly rude of you. Science communication to the general public is valuable. Let’s not forget that the author is a person too, just cause you don’t like it doesn’t mean you’ve got any place to talk down on them.
- ssl-3 10mo ago
  [dead]
  - cedilla 10mo ago
    I don't understand why anyone would think that this kind of snark and condescension is furthering the discussion in any way. A good thing for us all to keep in mind: we don't /have to/ share all our thoughts.
    - ssl-3 10mo ago
      If we were all following the guidelines here, then this little meta discussion about journalistic interpretation would have never even happened. We'd be discussing the topic, instead of the reporting of that topic. > Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.
- flave 10mo ago
  I’m sure the individual writer is smart educated and thoughtful, but the system of science journalism (science communication is different but equally flawed) is so bent-out-of-shape as to be effectively worthless. Like, take this exact article as a great example. I’m sure Mr Biswas is genuinely very intelligent and thoughtful and a great journalist but having him write a science article is unfair on him and on readers. Doesn’t even have an undergraduate in a science subject, has never worked as a scientist, and his job is as a national correspondent. Perhaps my wording prioritised humour over fairness - I’ll take the criticism on that. But I don’t think my core point was wrong. How can you “communicate” something you yourself don’t understand? Finally, I want to stress again - it’s not his fault. The system is broken.
  - terabytest 10mo ago
    Can you point out the issues with the article?
    - nelox 10mo ago
      The core issue is that the BBC report inflates what the study actually shows. The paper is a small, single-centre RCT of one specific surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Its primary outcome is a modest reduction in propofol and fentanyl dose under a very specific anaesthetic protocol. It does not demonstrate broadly faster recovery or an across-the-board clinical benefit. The authors themselves are cautious and explicitly list limitations. The article strips out that narrow context and generalises. Phrases like “music eases surgery and speeds recovery” and “strongest evidence yet” extrapolate from a sample of 56 people undergoing one procedure to “surgery” in general. The paper doesn’t measure global recovery outcomes, discharge times, or longer-term effects. Satisfaction and pain scores are even reported as comparable between groups (P=0.361 and P=0.07). There’s also mechanistic speculation in the article (implicit memory, psychological responses, “humanising the operating room”) that isn’t in the study’s data. The paper reports dose differences and perioperative physiological measures—not neuropsychological mechanisms.
      - waterhouse 10mo ago
- dev_hugepages 10mo ago
  I kind of understand where they come from: science vulgarization in pop news has been riddled with misinterpretation or lack of depth which can mislead the general public.
  - AlecSchueler 10mo ago
    Can't that be communicated without calling anyone a know-nothing hack?
    - flave 10mo ago
      I’m not gonna delete it as it’s just going to make comments like yours confusing for people, but that was poor phrasing from me. It gave the impression that this specific journalist knows nothing, which is unfair. I was trying to be funny (always risky online) and intended to be speaking humorously about science journalism in generally. In hindsight, my phrasing doesn’t do that, and actually doesn’t communicate what I was saying very well. I stand by my criticism of science journalism in general and my request that the article is just posted. But my wording was very rough, ultimately didn’t make the point I intended and yes might frustrate some people. If someone is extremely upset or hurt by my comment then, I think, at some stage that isn’t my fault and the Internet might not be right for that person.
      - squigz 10mo ago
        Oof, this comment was really nice up until the end. Accepting responsibility, expressing regret, etc. > If someone is extremely upset or hurt by my comment then, I think, at some stage that isn’t my fault and the Internet might not be right for that person. But then you're like "If you're upset, whatever, that's on you" - even though nobody's really suggested someone is "extremely" upset or hurt by your comment. Also, you can be funny on the Internet - it has nothing to do with that. The real question is whether you can be funny without degrading people.
        flave 10mo ago
        I’m just saying that I draw the line somewhere with how upset someone is. Like, if someone read my comment and thought it was unfair then I agree with them. If someone read it and was deeply hurt by it - that’s really in their court not mine.
ucha 10mo ago
n=56 doesn't give you much information regarding the margin of error, unless you practice Tarot Reader's cat science. The standard deviation of outcomes and the difference between both outcomes matter just as much. If I flip a coin 56 times and it always falls on head, I can be pretty much certain that it's not a fair coin. I wouldn't need to flip it 1000 times. We are all someone else's "know-nothing hack"...
- laborcontract 10mo ago
  also, “this is study is flawed because n=56, here’s my n=1” is hilarious
mentalgear 10mo ago
I also had cystoscope and the nurses suggested music - in addition to the pain killer. So yeah, I would say peaceful music helped me, but not as a replacement to a painkiller.

by flave 10mo ago

comradesmith 10mo ago

That is so incredibly rude of you. Science communication to the general public is valuable. Let’s not forget that the author is a person too, just cause you don’t like it doesn’t mean you’ve got any place to talk down on them.

ssl-3 10mo ago
[dead]
- cedilla 10mo ago
  I don't understand why anyone would think that this kind of snark and condescension is furthering the discussion in any way. A good thing for us all to keep in mind: we don't /have to/ share all our thoughts.
  - ssl-3 10mo ago
    If we were all following the guidelines here, then this little meta discussion about journalistic interpretation would have never even happened. We'd be discussing the topic, instead of the reporting of that topic. > Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.
flave 10mo ago
I’m sure the individual writer is smart educated and thoughtful, but the system of science journalism (science communication is different but equally flawed) is so bent-out-of-shape as to be effectively worthless. Like, take this exact article as a great example. I’m sure Mr Biswas is genuinely very intelligent and thoughtful and a great journalist but having him write a science article is unfair on him and on readers. Doesn’t even have an undergraduate in a science subject, has never worked as a scientist, and his job is as a national correspondent. Perhaps my wording prioritised humour over fairness - I’ll take the criticism on that. But I don’t think my core point was wrong. How can you “communicate” something you yourself don’t understand? Finally, I want to stress again - it’s not his fault. The system is broken.
- terabytest 10mo ago
  Can you point out the issues with the article?
  - nelox 10mo ago
    The core issue is that the BBC report inflates what the study actually shows. The paper is a small, single-centre RCT of one specific surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Its primary outcome is a modest reduction in propofol and fentanyl dose under a very specific anaesthetic protocol. It does not demonstrate broadly faster recovery or an across-the-board clinical benefit. The authors themselves are cautious and explicitly list limitations. The article strips out that narrow context and generalises. Phrases like “music eases surgery and speeds recovery” and “strongest evidence yet” extrapolate from a sample of 56 people undergoing one procedure to “surgery” in general. The paper doesn’t measure global recovery outcomes, discharge times, or longer-term effects. Satisfaction and pain scores are even reported as comparable between groups (P=0.361 and P=0.07). There’s also mechanistic speculation in the article (implicit memory, psychological responses, “humanising the operating room”) that isn’t in the study’s data. The paper reports dose differences and perioperative physiological measures—not neuropsychological mechanisms.
    - waterhouse 10mo ago
dev_hugepages 10mo ago
I kind of understand where they come from: science vulgarization in pop news has been riddled with misinterpretation or lack of depth which can mislead the general public.
- AlecSchueler 10mo ago
  Can't that be communicated without calling anyone a know-nothing hack?
  - flave 10mo ago
    I’m not gonna delete it as it’s just going to make comments like yours confusing for people, but that was poor phrasing from me. It gave the impression that this specific journalist knows nothing, which is unfair. I was trying to be funny (always risky online) and intended to be speaking humorously about science journalism in generally. In hindsight, my phrasing doesn’t do that, and actually doesn’t communicate what I was saying very well. I stand by my criticism of science journalism in general and my request that the article is just posted. But my wording was very rough, ultimately didn’t make the point I intended and yes might frustrate some people. If someone is extremely upset or hurt by my comment then, I think, at some stage that isn’t my fault and the Internet might not be right for that person.
    - squigz 10mo ago
      Oof, this comment was really nice up until the end. Accepting responsibility, expressing regret, etc. > If someone is extremely upset or hurt by my comment then, I think, at some stage that isn’t my fault and the Internet might not be right for that person. But then you're like "If you're upset, whatever, that's on you" - even though nobody's really suggested someone is "extremely" upset or hurt by your comment. Also, you can be funny on the Internet - it has nothing to do with that. The real question is whether you can be funny without degrading people.
      - flave 10mo ago
        I’m just saying that I draw the line somewhere with how upset someone is. Like, if someone read my comment and thought it was unfair then I agree with them. If someone read it and was deeply hurt by it - that’s really in their court not mine.

ucha 10mo ago

n=56 doesn't give you much information regarding the margin of error, unless you practice Tarot Reader's cat science. The standard deviation of outcomes and the difference between both outcomes matter just as much. If I flip a coin 56 times and it always falls on head, I can be pretty much certain that it's not a fair coin. I wouldn't need to flip it 1000 times. We are all someone else's "know-nothing hack"...

laborcontract 10mo ago
also, “this is study is flawed because n=56, here’s my n=1” is hilarious

mentalgear 10mo ago

I also had cystoscope and the nurses suggested music - in addition to the pain killer. So yeah, I would say peaceful music helped me, but not as a replacement to a painkiller.