tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post4094751112702117616..comments2024-03-28T13:38:36.788-04:00Comments on Pharma Marketing Blog: Crowdsourcing Vs. ScienceVladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04114063498108633047noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-26050382148892702092010-02-02T17:42:06.923-05:002010-02-02T17:42:06.923-05:00Dear Anonymous,
At the Nov hearing, my survey had...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />At the Nov hearing, my survey had 354 responses. It now has 427, which is a 20% increase. I bet you wish your stock market investments did as well.PharmaGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211557578124130640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-84804796089408291632010-02-02T16:58:59.153-05:002010-02-02T16:58:59.153-05:00Wisdom of the crowds also fails through peer press...Wisdom of the crowds also fails through peer pressure, herd instinct and collective hysteria. <br /><br />As the self-proclaimed voice of the 'Twitterati' toward the FDA, an information cascade may have developed with a fragile outcome.<br /><br />Perhaps this is the reason why you blew your chance last year in Washington and have been treading water in getting people to answer your survey ever since.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-4244598796528867462010-02-02T16:53:37.126-05:002010-02-02T16:53:37.126-05:00John,
As you suggested (correctly it turns out), ...John,<br /><br />As you suggested (correctly it turns out), the figures I presented for patients are NOT the same as the number who completed the surveys. The response rates for these are in the 10-20% range. <br /><br />iGuard also supplied me with some more information about how they conduct these surveys and the tools they use. I've added this as an update to my post. I'd invite you to take a look.<br /><br />Thanks for the always incisive investigative reporting and for keeping me honest.<br /><br />Jonathan<br />Dose of DigitalJonathan Richmanhttp://www.doseofdigital.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-58246442849091947322010-02-02T11:33:49.769-05:002010-02-02T11:33:49.769-05:00Jon,
Glad to see that you really do not believe w...Jon,<br /><br />Glad to see that you really do not believe what you implied :-)PharmaGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211557578124130640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-17182946793557434642010-02-02T11:30:58.926-05:002010-02-02T11:30:58.926-05:00John,
Somehow you have a way of sensationalizing ...John,<br /><br />Somehow you have a way of sensationalizing my posts sometimes. I'm going to have to block you somehow.<br /><br />Kidding, of course, I appreciate your challenges and at least one has made me go back and update a post. However, I think part of my post was either taken a bit out of context or I wasn't very clear.<br /><br />TO BE SURE, I don't think that a doctor using iGuard ratings (though they do use the validated TSQM) to make treatment decisions is either wise nor a substitute for randomized clinical trials and the physician's own personal experience. I can see where you might get this idea from the way I wrote my post.<br /><br />What I was TRYING to say was simply this: physicians shouldn't ignore these TYPE of ratings. That is, ratings provided by actual patients in the real world. Why should they ignore them? It gives yet another data point (but not THE data point) to help them learn about treatments. I didn't mean to imply that they should pick a treatment based on a number, but rather that they might benefit from some of the verbatim comments about particular treatments. Again, not to make a decision, but to simply get more information. These are the complaints and issues (and positive experiences) that their patients simply don't share with them (shown in study after study). These verbatim comments could give a physician some idea of areas to address with with patients to avoid problems later. For example, if the comments show a lot of people saying something like, "I wish my doctor told me about this joint pain ahead of time," the doctor can address that in advance and reduce the risk that the patient stops treatment when this occurs. That has to a positive outcome.<br /><br />iGuard used to show something that was basically this "What I wish my doctor told me" for each drug. Not sure what happened to that.<br /><br />Give me a bit more credit than this post allows, John. I, like you, have my training in science, so I know what good objective science is and what's not. Nowhere did I suggest that iGuard ratings should be a substitute for clinical experience and randomized trials.<br /><br />I did say, "How long before they too use these types of reviews to decide which treatments to prescribe?" but, as I said in my post, the current systems are still not "clean" enough to allow them to be be used in this manner. In the future though, this could be different, when these comments are tied to EMRs and involve millions of people.<br /><br />As for the numbers of patients reviewing the treatment versus on the treatment, I'll get back with you. I honestly don't know the answer. Regardless, I don't think that 22,000 patients in iGuard (as I said above) is enough to direct what treatment physicians prescribe. We're a long way from this.<br /><br />Best,<br />Jonathan<br />Dose of DigitalJonathan Richmanhttp://www.doseofdigital.comnoreply@blogger.com