Read on Twitter
Below is an Interesting take on the mask study in @JAMA. I will take another (I think more patient-oriented) perspective on it for the purpose of academic (friendly) debate.
I’ll start by saying that I think that many critics of this study are thinking too much like doctors... https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1322720087132925952
I’ll start by saying that I think that many critics of this study are thinking too much like doctors... https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1322720087132925952
W/advent of home pulse oximeters, I daresay that O2 sat has become a primary way that many patients take matters into their own hands to diagnose severity of respiratory complaints.
Patient perspective: "It’s hard (a pain) to see a doctor. So why not let O2 sat arbitrate?"
Patient perspective: "It’s hard (a pain) to see a doctor. So why not let O2 sat arbitrate?"
If you don’t believe me, I had a patient last wk who told me she thought she had possibly gotten #COVID19 bc sat was 65% on my sat monitor w/HR 95. She then realized much to her relief that the orientation of the HR/sat was inverted from her home one; ergo, she didn’t have COVID
We MD's in fact underappreciate the impact of O2 saturation in our patients’ minds, especially now.
Home monitoring has been a game-changer, and carries with it a psychology that MDs are likely slow to understand.
Home monitoring has been a game-changer, and carries with it a psychology that MDs are likely slow to understand.
It was next to impossible to find a PulseOx in stores when the pandemic started (that’s how many people bought them, and many check sats daily if not more).
So in current day, the O2 sat number carries a powerful meaning for patients, and is almost no longer a “medical” number.
So in current day, the O2 sat number carries a powerful meaning for patients, and is almost no longer a “medical” number.
Mentors have taught me that simple messages are easiest to understand (therefore best to study).
If we accept O2 sat carries a and simple ubiquitous message patients themselves understand, then what is so wrong w/a study that establishes that “Masks don’t affect the O2 sat?”
If we accept O2 sat carries a and simple ubiquitous message patients themselves understand, then what is so wrong w/a study that establishes that “Masks don’t affect the O2 sat?”
Patients don’t need an “MD translation” of O2 sat. They understand it themselves, and more importantly they likely perceive the meaning of a normal/unchanged O2 sat it in a way that MD-centric critics might not even recognize.
Contrast that with CO2, pH, lactate level, or whatever else might be additionally valid to “scientifically” study when determining if masks truly affect respiratory outcomes.
I also personally find it hard to argue both of the following at the same time: 1. Such a study is worthless because no sane person thinks that masks affect respiratory status, and 2. Well if you’re going to do a study, then you need to do blood gases etc..
The real issue here is that there has been a ton of misinformation out there about masks. To me, this simple study aims to refute that misinformation in a patient-relevant way, BYPASSING the need for MD translation, as a tiny research letter of a respected widely covered journal.
@JAMA_current has not gotten everything right, but has been a source of credible information about COVID-19 in a time when that is so desperately needed.
It's footprint is broad, and it's reach (especially w/this simple message) has potential to get to patients with doubts.
It's footprint is broad, and it's reach (especially w/this simple message) has potential to get to patients with doubts.
In fact, it would be easy for MD's to tell their patients simply, "Did you see that study that masks didn't affect O2 sats"
Some (ANY) data is additive to the abstract "Do you wear a mask?"
Some (ANY) data is additive to the abstract "Do you wear a mask?"
And it is true that many patients (not MDs) out there still do feel that masks affect their respiratory status. If you don’t believe it, JUST ASK THEM.
One final note… I would bet that the issue of exclusion of patients w/comorbid cardiac or respiratory conditions that could lead to dyspnea or hypoxia at rest or who were unable to remove the mask without assistance was partly an IRB consideration based upon CDC recommendations.
Thanks for reading. And please note that I wrote this without tagging any friends ;) I’m out on the limb all alone on this one, which Is just ok with me.
Sorry - I couldn’t help adding that last part. It is a playful attempt at humor, that's all.
Sorry - I couldn’t help adding that last part. It is a playful attempt at humor, that's all.
