tinylilronIs there somewhere in the article that mentions this? I feel like this is an unfair question because are we just supposed to know that EPCS is a specialized treatment+
etherbunnyI got it only by exclusion- the other answers are all clearly incorrect. Crappy question though.+
lindasmith462this also isn't what generalization ACTUALLY means. (its the right answer on the test bc I've seen similar Qs several times where problems in generalization = ThE sTuDy DoEsNt ApPlY tO eVeRyOnE. Problems in generalizability is about when you cant apply the findings based on the study population to the target population - not that the target population isn't broad enough. For example a study focused at treating cancer pain in women 40-70 Y.O. w/ breast cancer doesn't have a generalizability problem because you can't apply it to a 30 Y.O. M with testicular cancer. It would be a problem if for example, if there were super strict inclusion criteria (ie no comorbidities and had to come to clinic every week for tx) - that limited how the study would apply to the target pop that likely has many comorbidities/limited health care access.
This bastardization of how "generalizability" is a recent trend by salty editors, I cant believe the NBME is hopping on this shit bandwagon+4
charcot_bouchardIKR! This totally misidentify what ext validity/generalizability means. Like this study is good and generalizable to ALL PEOPLE WHO GETS EPCS AT SPECIALIZED CENTRE....
i mean we are comparing EPCS itself...so why absence of it in other areas hamper its generalizability...those who wont get it, will not be come into equation first place.+2
submitted by โbwdc(697)
This is a great RCT. The issue is that EPCS is a specialized treatment not as widely and emergently available as the usual GI-doc on call.