Parachute Use Does Not Prevent Death

[Trausti]

Abstract

Objective To determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft.

Design Randomized controlled trial.

Setting Private or commercial aircraft between September 2017 and August 2018.

Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were screened for participation. 23 agreed to be enrolled and were randomized.

Intervention Jumping from an aircraft (airplane or helicopter) with a parachute versus an empty backpack (unblinded).

Main outcome measures Composite of death or major traumatic injury (defined by an Injury Severity Score over 15) upon impact with the ground measured immediately after landing.

Results Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001).

Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

[Insert Science Reporting Headline Here]

I don't understand why the media has reported this great scientific discovery.

 

[Jokodo]

A spin-off of this one, it seems: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/742...ae3a177b74b34d01c11aed46&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

[untermensche]

Who is this shit supposed to amuse?

 

[Jokodo]

Who is this shit supposed to amuse?

It's not primarily supposed to amuse, it's supposed to subtly demonstrate the limits of certain methodologies through a technique called reductio ad absurdum.

It's also amusing though, and if you don't see that, you must have a sad life.

 

[untermensche]

Who is this shit supposed to amuse?

It's not primarily supposed to amuse, it's supposed to subtly demonstrate the limits of certain methodologies through a technique called reductio ad absurdum.

It's also amusing though, and if you don't see that, you must have a sad life.

It is total shit on a glance.

It is not testing what it claims to be testing.

No need to look any further at it.

And it is ignorant, not funny.

 

[Jokodo]

Who is this shit supposed to amuse?

It's not primarily supposed to amuse, it's supposed to subtly demonstrate the limits of certain methodologies through a technique called reductio ad absurdum.

It's also amusing though, and if you don't see that, you must have a sad life.

It is total shit on a glance.

It is not testing what it claims to be testing.

No need to look any further at it.

And it is ignorant, not funny.

What do you think it claims to be testing?

 

[untermensche]

It claims to be testing the effectiveness of parachutes.

It is not even looking at the intended use of parachutes.

 

[steve_bank]

Sounds like a medical study related to suicide jumping. Keywords are clinical, intervention and jumping.

Grabbing onto a suicide jumper with a parachute and jumping?

On the face of it the idea of comparing jumping from a plane with and without a parachute from a plane makes no sense.

There have been cases where people have survived a complete parachute failure.

 

[untermensche]

As an exercise to understand bad research methodology it has some value.

Statistics can be used on random data.

Statistical analysis in itself is meaningless.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Who is this shit supposed to amuse?

The anti-gun mob.

 

[TSwizzle]

Too bad this guy didn't read the study;

15-year-old boy plunged to his death after his homemade parachute failed to open properly in a leap from a tower block in Ukraine. Horrifying footage shows Bogdan Firsov falling from the 14th floor in the eastern Ukrainian city of Makiivka. Adults, including his mother, watched and are even said to have encouraged the teenager as he prepared to try out his makeshift parachute as part of a social media stunt. The clip shows him with his arms outstretched on top of the building. As he falls, a parachute is visible but it does not unfurl properly during the 140ft drop.

DailyMail

 

[fromderinside]

Still, I like it better than reports of guys setting themselves aflame and jumping off nine story buildings into snowbanks for 'thrills' and YouTube footage.

 

[Trausti]

As an exercise to understand bad research methodology it has some value.

Statistics can be used on random data.

Statistical analysis in itself is meaningless.

That is the point!

However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Who is this shit supposed to amuse?

It's not primarily supposed to amuse, it's supposed to subtly demonstrate the limits of certain methodologies through a technique called reductio ad absurdum.

It's also amusing though, and if you don't see that, you must have a sad life.

This last line seems to be a testable hypothesis.

- - - Updated - - -

It claims to be testing the effectiveness of parachutes.

It is not even looking at the intended use of parachutes.

Hypothesis confirmed, it seems.