Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9725723

Fuzzy thinking.

P Cave
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Philosophical analysis is increasingly applied to nursing issues. Whereas pre-analytical discussions might be sloppy, analysis should bring rigour. This paper explores some mistakes and misconceptions concerning nurse-related reasonings. It uses, as a running theme, a recent paper in the Journal of Advanced Nursing by Rolfe. The mistakes and misleadings to be found in the paper are not uncommon; so the paper's correction quest aims more widely than single author critique. The mistakes and misconceptions could initially appear abstract and without practical outcome; in order to avoid the threatened appearance, a nursing case study is presented, displaying some undesirable consequences for a nurse who is misled by her reading. It is hoped that this paper shows how some accuracy may be well leading.

Explore related subjects

BiasFuzzy LogicHumansNursing ProcessNursing Staff, HospitalPhilosophy, NursingProfessional CompetenceThinkingJournal ArticleComment

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Cave. 1998. Fuzzy thinking.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00793.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗