Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Does it betray my beautiful Tuesday morning, post-long-weekend, sunny optimism, to ask that we all just calm down here a minute ? Instead of speculating and arguing about an (as yet) unread paper. on 12/3/02 8:21 AM, Matthias Voss at mat.voss@t-*.de* wrote: > I do not know the tools needed for the cited check, but can imagine that > it implies the use of well maintained binoculars ( not sure about the > degree of magnification needed. They used an opthamological tool called a 'slit lamp' There seems to be all different sorts of these things, but a web search reveals a hand held one looks looks this: http://www.revoptom.com/ps/product102.htm > While not questioning the claimed ease of performing this test, That was my initial thought also, that this may be a more accessible form of bubble measurement to replace the relatively inaccessible doppler, however it seems this is not the case ... at least yet. After reading the paper, a fair bit of the methodology deals with the variation in collection data due to operator difference in counting bubbles. So the slit lamp appears to be at least, if not more, subjective than doppler. > Since DCS cases are not very frequent, I would like to see the > statistical background of this study, whether it was done in field, or > by test objects ( animals) , since real tests with divers are not > consistent with medical ethics. It was in fact done on a total of 53 divers and the whole program was cleared by the overseeing Ethics Committee. I don't think this is a big deal since they are only measuring everyday rec diving gumbies doing their normal weekend dives. All the divers were adult volunteer, qualified scuba divers, who dived PADI NDLs (I know) See my comments to Esat's post further to this. > If there is a sufficient number of observed data, there will be no > concern of an alpha error, if not, following guidelines derived from > this study will add accidents to the DCS statistics where divers > received no timely treatment because they did not show a sufficient > number of bubbles in their tear liqid, and this perhaps in spite of > neurologic symptoms. Bearing in mind I know jack shit about statistics (or the whole paper for that matter) quite a lot of the study is given over to the methodology of the statistical analysis. Those better qualified in statistics would need to state their opinion as the to the veracity of the data. As I said, you can read it for yourself at www.realworld.com.au/OccularTears.pdf regards dean laffan real world productions melbourne, australia ph +613-9419-3966 Mobile 0418-525-315 -- 'To deep air dive is to be stupid. It's foolish. It just makes no sense. Deep air diving is absolutely bullshit, man. -Billy Deans -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]