Originally Posted by gingernut
You have a choice, take the advice of an "expert," who may give you his opinion based on his experience- (which is sometimes very valid), or take the advice of a clinician who prefers to follow the evidence.
Such a clinician should be seeking out the results of unbiassed, robust, scientific trials, or the results of several of these trials...
Putting "expert" in inverted commas implies that the otorhinolaryngologist is not an expert. Presumably this means either that his training is questionable or that his inherent bias nullifies his expertise (he/she is intrinsically unable or unwilling to follow the evidence). This is confusing! If an "expert" is not an expert, or his experience is only valid some of the time (and you can't tell when) then who do we turn to?
You can get a personal opinion based on the experience of a specialist or you can get a general statistical analysis of your case based on the results of clinical trials.
Statistics are excellent for determining public health policy, but less good at determining individual patient treatment.
This is what sometimes makes clinical decisions difficult. Just because "the majority of patients showed no clinical benefit" (and this could be 51% or 99%) does not mean that one particular patient may not benefit. This is where experience and clinical judgement come in to play (if they're allowed to).
Here -
http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/...03/tonsill.htm - is a very reasonable analysis.
"Be careful you don't get a blinkered approach." - this good advice cuts both ways.