This hits on something really interesting about how clinical dogma persists even with weak evidential foundations. The propensity matching caveat is key tho, since the patients who tolerated 2.5L positive balance probably had different underlying physiology. Still, when oral tradition meets actual data, its worth reconsidering the absolutes we teach.
Yeh – and that ties back into this idea "target trial emulation" is somehow a valid approach. Patient may superficially appear to be identical at the time of "enrollment", but undetected selection factors influence which patients receive which treatment.
Not a lot of takeaways here, other than to see a general absence of a signal of severe harm in the cohort with rapid correction.
This hits on something really interesting about how clinical dogma persists even with weak evidential foundations. The propensity matching caveat is key tho, since the patients who tolerated 2.5L positive balance probably had different underlying physiology. Still, when oral tradition meets actual data, its worth reconsidering the absolutes we teach.
Yeh – and that ties back into this idea "target trial emulation" is somehow a valid approach. Patient may superficially appear to be identical at the time of "enrollment", but undetected selection factors influence which patients receive which treatment.
Not a lot of takeaways here, other than to see a general absence of a signal of severe harm in the cohort with rapid correction.