First, it was a glass of red wine daily, then no wine, and now it’s beer. Next, it’s no alcohol at all. Eat more red meat then it’s no meat at all. Walk, don’t run, then ride a bike instead of jogging. The never-ending cycle of studies dictating how we should live our lives is becoming absurd. And this latest study, titled “Sleep Patterns and the Risk of Acute Stroke: Results from the INTERSTROKE International Case-Control Study,” which has been shockingly peer-reviewed, is no exception.
Renowned psychologist Jordan Peterson has pointed out time and again in his talks that studies often have multiple criteria and dimensions. Yet, researchers simply cherry-pick a small handful of data points to conclude. Take this latest study, for example. The control group was adjusted for age, occupation, marital status, and modified-Rankin Scale at baseline, with subsequent models adjusting for potential mediators like behavioural and disease risk factors. But what does “adjusted” mean, and where are the formulas? It seems like a tactic to overwhelm readers with data points, giving the impression that the study is rigorous and reliable.
So, when we hear the term “peer-reviewed,” should we put all our faith in it? Who are these so-called peers anyway? When I hear “peer-reviewed,” it does not amount to a hill of beans” The constant flip-flopping of recommendations and the lack of transparency in study methodologies raise doubts about the reliability of research findings. It’s time to approach studies critically and consider the limitations and biases that may be present. After all, blindly following the latest study du jour may not be the best way to navigate our lives.
The article presents findings from a study on sleep patterns, but it lacks a comprehensive approach and fails to consider other potential factors that could impact sleep quality. The study appears to be purely anecdotal, as it does not consider variables such as depression, drug addiction, general health, diet, BMI, and personality traits, which could significantly influence sleep patterns. By relying on a limited corpus of data, the study may provide a skewed opinion and potentially alarm readers, causing them to lose sleep over the findings. This creates a paradox where the study on sleep could contribute to sleep loss due to its limited and selective approach.
It is important to recognize that sleep is a complex process influenced by numerous factors. While the study may shed light on a specific aspect of sleep, there may be a partial picture of the situation. Factors such as mental health conditions, substance use, overall health status, lifestyle choices, and individual differences in personality traits can all impact sleep quality and quantity. Ignoring these variables can result in an oversimplified understanding of sleep patterns and lead to potentially misleading conclusions.
Moreover, studies that only rely on small sample sizes or fail to consider various factors may not be generalizable to a larger population. Drawing broad conclusions based on limited data can be misleading and may not accurately reflect the reality of sleep patterns in diverse populations.
Inaccurate or incomplete information about sleep can also be detrimental, as it may contribute to unnecessary anxiety and stress about sleep quality, which ironically can further disrupt sleep. It is important to approach sleep research cautiously and consider the study design’s limitations, sample size, and variables considered.
It cannot be understated that conducting better studies is essential to draw accurate conclusions. As assumed by the average person, the baseline for a study would involve tracking individuals, logging their sleep patterns, and monitoring stroke occurrence to determine potential causes. However, the reality of studies like the INTERSTROKE study is far from this assumption. In such studies, cases typically include patients who have experienced a stroke, whether ischemic or hemorrhagic, within a specific time frame, such as 72 hours of hospital admission or within the past year. Controls are usually individuals without a history of stroke, matched based on characteristics like age, sex, and other relevant factors. The purpose is to compare exposure history, including risk factors, between cases and controls to identify potential associations with stroke.
This approach essentially translates to drawing sweeping conclusions from a limited set of data points from individuals who have already experienced a stroke. While sleep’s importance cannot be downplayed, a more comprehensive study design that includes diverse profiles and data points would have been more robust. The INTERSTROKE study states that sleep is important without providing significant additional insights. This lack of inclusivity in the study design may render the findings less impactful and, in some cases, redundant.
Acknowledging the significance of well-designed studies that consider various factors and include a more diverse and comprehensive sample to ensure reliable and meaningful conclusions is crucial. Simply stating the obvious, without sufficient data and profile inclusivity, can be deemed superfluous and may not contribute significantly to the existing knowledge in the field.
While the article presents findings on sleep patterns, it needs a comprehensive approach to consider other potential factors that could impact sleep quality. Studies that rely on limited data and do not account for various variables can be misleading and may cause unnecessary alarm, leading to further sleep disturbances. It is essential to interpret sleep research cautiously and consider the broader context of sleep patterns to avoid creating a paradox where the study contributes to sleep loss.
Stack yet another peer-reviewed study to the pile. – Mark Davenport
The Canadian Truth Network 