There are quite a few that looked at this issue. Here are the first few hits from scholar.google.com, (search link: http://tinyurl.com/statinsMeta)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/24/2340 http://www.anmco.it/aree/elenco/prevenzione/trial/CTT.pdf http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7404/1423 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/adis/inp/2005/00000001/00001508/art00025?crawler=true http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/12/2902 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1884492&blobtype=pdf I just scanned the abstracts of these and other articles and without an exception so far, with the combinatorial reviews using upwards of 100,000 subjects, yes the analyses show that statins signficantly reduce heart diease and cholesterol. Here's a very typical conclusion: -- Statins reduce coronary events, strokes and all-cause mortality without increasing noncoronary mortality. The benefits accrue in men and women, hypertensives and normotensives, diabetics and nondiabetics, and particularly in smokers. Pravastatin appears to have less impact on strokes. -- As for evidence based medicine, I like what the evidence based medicine group at the George Washington Medical School is doing, and the group really to follow is the Cochran Collaboration Institute. On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Gruss Gott<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Larry wrote: >> Other examples include recent withdrawals of heart medications from >> the market. The meta-analyses done on the studies involved showed that >> generics were as effective and had fewer side effects. It may have >> resulted in the saving of several thousand lives. >> > > Has meta-analysis been done on statins do you know? Because they > aren't clinically proven effective for heart disease and can have some > nasty side effects including killing. > > Yet doctors prescribe them like M&Ms. > > Then there's depression medication which, if you look at the data, > shows that only the very worst cases - 1% - need any medication but > again doctors prescribe them like M&Ms. > > So what I'm wondering is if you could identify "pop-medicine" via > treatments that have not had meta-analysis done. > > The bottom line is that true evidence-based doctors like Dr. Weil at > treated like kooks, while mainstream pop-docs get all the glory. > > In other words, if doctors are prescribing non-proven treatments maybe > someone SHOULD be getting between you and your doctor. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:303633 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
