Current Events > Parachutes don't actually reduce the risk of injury when jumping from airplanes.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

Also 80/80
---

So skydivers dont need parachutes to survive the jumps?
---

the conclusion is unfinished, it leaves out a key point in the findings

it's funny but ... i mean, anything can be funny like this if you leave out the most important parts
---

Chicken posted...

So skydivers dont need parachutes to survive the jumps?

brb jumping out of plane
---

TC should jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

Not being rude, TC made the topic
---

Not clicking the link but this is a stupid topic
---

I went skydiving once. Definitely think the parachute helped lol
---

Was that a statistician's idea of a joke? So, they showed that a parachute doesn't help to prevent death when you're jumping like ten feet to the ground. Yeah, I can agree with that.
---

The PARACHUTE trial satirically highlights some of the limitations of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, we believe that such trials remain the gold standard for the evaluation of most new treatments. The PARACHUTE trial does suggest, however, that their accurate interpretation requires more than a cursory reading of the abstract. Rather, interpretation requires a complete and critical appraisal of the study. In addition, our study highlights that studies evaluating devices that are already entrenched in clinical practice face the particularly difficult task of ensuring that patients with the greatest expected benefit from treatment are included during enrolment.
---

ssjevot posted...

The PARACHUTE trial satirically highlights some of the limitations of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, we believe that such trials remain the gold standard for the evaluation of most new treatments. The PARACHUTE trial does suggest, however, that their accurate interpretation requires more than a cursory reading of the abstract. Rather, interpretation requires a complete and critical appraisal of the study. In addition, our study highlights that studies evaluating devices that are already entrenched in clinical practice face the particularly difficult task of ensuring that patients with the greatest expected benefit from treatment are included during enrolment.

However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps.

I'm glad somebody here actually reads.
---

this kind of satire is way too subtle for most people
---

thronedfire2 posted...

this kind of satire is way too subtle for most people

Not all of us are willing to read through a wall of text about something as uninteresting as parachutes. Its also poorly written so I gave up halfway through.
---

Chicken posted...

thronedfire2 posted...

this kind of satire is way too subtle for most people

Not all of us are willing to read through a wall of text about something as uninteresting as parachutes. Its also poorly written so I gave up halfway through.

"Poorly written"

Read literally any scientific journal on studies and they all should read like this

Just because you aren't used to reading things in this format doesn't mean it's badly written

It's like insulting a poet for not doing rhyme schemes for their poems
---

Still boring lol
---

Y I K E S
l
K
E
S
---

Parachutes? Ha!

Peggy Hill didnt need no parachute.
---

SerperiorThanU posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Chicken posted...

thronedfire2 posted...

this kind of satire is way too subtle for most people

Not all of us are willing to read through a wall of text about something as uninteresting as parachutes. Its also poorly written so I gave up halfway through.

"Poorly written"

Read literally any scientific journal on studies and they all should read like this

Just because you aren't used to reading things in this format doesn't mean it's badly written

It's like insulting a poet for not doing rhyme schemes for their poems

He just means he doesn't have the brain capacity to understand it. Chicken is one of the more brain deprived posters here.

Well, Chickens can survive without their brain.
---

they really went all out on this, huh
---

This research ahould have been piss easy and dead simple.

Take a group of a thousand jumpers.

If more than 50% survive, then parachutes are beneficial.

The end.
---

Bump
---

Mistere Man posted...

Parachutes? Ha!

Peggy Hill didnt need no parachute.

I don't need no stinking parachute.
---

You fell 12000 feet and survived
---

I look forward to the BMJ Christmas articles every year. Always a hearty hoot.
---

indica posted...

Was that a statistician's idea of a joke? So, they showed that a parachute doesn't help to prevent death when you're jumping like ten feet to the ground. Yeah, I can agree with that.

Actually it was about 2 feet.

people are not getting the point of the article, clearly.

Nazanir posted...

This research ahould have been piss easy and dead simple.

Take a group of a thousand jumpers.

If more than 50% survive, then parachutes are beneficial.

The end.

actually the rate is always 50%, because you either die or you don't. mathematically, parachutes can't change that, period.

Conclusions
Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

LMAO.
---

The entire point of the trial was to make fun of people who believe study headlines without reading the methodology.
---

gunplagirl posted...

It's like insulting a poet for not doing rhyme schemes for their poems

I've never seen a good poem without rhymes.
---

DarkRoast posted...

The entire point of the trial was to make fun of people who believe study headlines without reading the methodology.

also its a critique of the use of experimental designs that don't match up with how things happen in practical situations

Fam_Fam posted...

DarkRoast posted...

The entire point of the trial was to make fun of people who believe study headlines without reading the methodology.

also its a critique of the use of experimental designs that don't match up with how things happen in practical situations

It even notes the need for cautious extrapolation as heights increase.
---

Parachutes do not actually reduce the risk of injury when jumping from airplanes on the ground
---

Chicken posted...

thronedfire2 posted...

this kind of satire is way too subtle for most people

Not all of us are willing to read through a wall of text about something as uninteresting as parachutes. Its also poorly written so I gave up halfway through.

You made it halfway through without realizing it was satire?
---

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/12/13/we-jumped-from-planes-without-parachutes-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale/

Our attempts to recruit in-flight passengers to our ambitious trial were first met with quizzical looks and incredulity, predictably followed by a firm, No, I would not jump without a parachute. For the majority of the screened population of the PARACHUTE trial, there was no equipoiseparachutes are the prevailing standard of care. And we concur.

But what if we provided assurances that the planes were stationary and on the ground, and that the jump would be just a couple of feet? It was at this point that our study took off.

lol
---

That no one would ever jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute has often been used to argue that randomising people to either a potentially life saving medical intervention or a control would be inappropriate, and that the efficacy of such an intervention should be discerned from clinical judgment alone. We disagree, for the most part. We believe that randomisation is critical to evaluating the benefits and harms of the vast majority of modern therapies, most of which are unlikely to be nearly as effective at achieving their end goal as parachutes are at preventing injury among people jumping from aircraft.

That's really interesting.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/12/13/we-jumped-from-planes-without-parachutes-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale/

Our attempts to recruit in-flight passengers to our ambitious trial were first met with quizzical looks and incredulity, predictably followed by a firm, No, I would not jump without a parachute. For the majority of the screened population of the PARACHUTE trial, there was no equipoiseparachutes are the prevailing standard of care. And we concur.

But what if we provided assurances that the planes were stationary and on the ground, and that the jump would be just a couple of feet? It was at this point that our study took off.

lol

I literally did not read the link in the OP. Did I just get that right?
---

Fam_Fam posted...

Nazanir posted...

This research ahould have been piss easy and dead simple.

Take a group of a thousand jumpers.

If more than 50% survive, then parachutes are beneficial.

The end.

actually the rate is always 50%, because you either die or you don't. mathematically, parachutes can't change that, period.

Law of Probability does not quite work that way, but you got the basics. You got to to deeper than that.
---