Introduction
As the text points out, causal reasoning is used in clinical studies. As a professional in the health field, you will undoubtedly be referring to cause/effect studies for the rest of your professional life. In this discussion, you are asked to expand and deepen your understanding of clinical studies.
In 1999, a study on the causes of myopia appeared in the prestigious journal Nature (Quinn). The study received wide-spread publicity in leading newspapers, such as the New York Times, and on television outlets, such as CBS and CNN. Within a year, another article in Nature followed up the 1999 study (Zadnik et al., 2000). The studies had dramatically different findings.
Initial Post Instructions
Using what you have learned from the text, as well as any other sources you may find useful (including the website in the Required Resources), analyze and evaluate the methodology of both studies and how methodology affected the differences in how the studies were reported.
ANSWER:
This week, we learned empirical and comparative reasoning. In this discussion, I will discuss empirical reasoning with a narrow focus on the two given studies. Basically, empirical reasoning refers to the logic of describing the state of affairs using an experiment. The said experiment can be conducted in natural settings or, at times, created in a laboratory environment (NIA, 2020). When we conduct a study in the laboratory, it is called a clinical trial. Clinical trials are highly effective in assessing the efficacy of new interventions, particularly drugs. This methodology can also be sued to determine the risk of developing disease even before the symptoms begin to manifest (NIA, 2020). Between the two given studies, “Myopia and ambient night-time lighting” uses data collected in a clinical trial. The clinical trial famously referred to CONTINUE READING…