I agree here, though I personally wouldn't trust a single doctor to him/herself be able to parse, as you say, the research.
Research is written at a peer level and most doctors are not trained or don't care to know how to interpret the results of research. Not to mention that the vast majority of research is extremely specific.
>Research is written at a peer level and most doctors are not trained or don't care to know how to interpret the results of research. Not to mention that the vast majority of research is extremely specific.
Most research (the vast majority) is also bogus too. Until it's distilled to common practice, people shouldn't really touch it with a bargepole.
I read your larger comment and I don't agree with most of what you're saying as a generalization.
This though:
> Until it's distilled to common practice, people shouldn't really touch it with a bargepole.
I can agree with. Most research if it's not done in the clinic and proven, has parameters so specific that it is impossible to apply to a single member of a population without that member having the exact parameters that the original research had.
Even then, the original research was probably done on some animal and not a human.
Then we do translational testing/research which gets done on a more human like animal and if we're lucky some human samples (given a disease). Then the clinical trials etc.
Though a review of the current literature can be beneficial. But you'd still need to have training to be able to interpret what you're reading.
Research is written at a peer level and most doctors are not trained or don't care to know how to interpret the results of research. Not to mention that the vast majority of research is extremely specific.