Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j7gf127 wrote

Reply to comment by Wagamaga in Analysis showed that 65.6% of women who took extra Vitamin D gave birth naturally. The study analysed results from the MAVIDOS trial which involved 965 women being randomly allocated an extra 1,000 International Units (IU) per day of vitamin D during their pregnancy or a placebo. by Wagamaga

>Analysis showed that 65.6% of women who took extra Vitamin D had a spontaneous vaginal delivery, or “natural” delivery, compared to 57.9% in the placebo group.

That would be a much better title.

The current title is almost meaningless.

228

DrTonyTiger t1_j7ggio8 wrote

"Associated with a slightly increased likelihood of natural delivery."

33

Putin_Delenda_Est t1_j7gust9 wrote

I don’t think that much of a change, if the correlation is good, would be considered slight. In a public health care system it could financially represent billions in saving.

16

aradil t1_j7h0td3 wrote

I know you just threw out a number there, but if we’re talking single digit billions, that’s such a small percentage of health care dollars that it would barely register.

If the average person in the US costs $13k a year in health care, scaled down to the individually, billions of dollars would be like… tens of dollars per person of that $13k.

The US spends trillions of dollars a year on healthcare.

3

Putin_Delenda_Est t1_j7h1ic9 wrote

Yeah, I also said a Public system. The United States could get down to 4-5k per year just by switching to a single payer system.

After that it very much matters how you manage resources.

4

aradil t1_j7h26d8 wrote

My point was that that dollar amount is meaningless without context of how much is being spent.

I also don’t think it would save billions of dollars in, say, Canada, which would still be only a modest couple of percentage of points of savings.

1

elcheapodeluxe t1_j7gn73y wrote

Agreed. Had to click just to find if there was any comparative number whatsoever - or if the press release was made by idiots.

21

ctorg t1_j7gzodh wrote

Same. I clicked because I was shocked that 65.5% was an improvement. I had no idea spontaneous vaginal delivery rates were that low.

13

newpua_bie t1_j7jlab7 wrote

They're not that low everywhere. For example, in Finland (my birth country) the rate is about 83%, while also having one of the world's lowest infant & maternal mortality. US probably just does C-sections more than medically justified (more $$$?)

5

PsychologicalLuck343 t1_j7hz7ux wrote

It's not the press release, it's the almost universally bad science writing in journalism. How can it always be so fucked up??

6

Fuzzy_Garry t1_j7gp9rd wrote

Was looking for the baseline in the comments, cheers.

0

Quetzalcoatle19 t1_j7gh81i wrote

Your rewording is still meaningless. Natural birth is all birth.

−15

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j7gk2hk wrote

>Your rewording is still meaningless.

I didn't reword anything, I just quoted the OP

>Natural birth is all birth.

Anyone with half a brain understands what is meant by natural birth in this context.

10

Quetzalcoatle19 t1_j7h3enc wrote

Well Vitamin D wouldn’t have any affect on a non natural birth aka cesarean.

−9

Otherwise-Way-1176 t1_j7o05tr wrote

Then why was a difference observed in the study??

0

Quetzalcoatle19 t1_j7qgqm8 wrote

There wasn’t? I don’t even need to read the article for that. Cesarean is done because of a physical impossibility of trying to push the baby through the vaginal canal, if it’s being done, you already do not have other options, and they do not allow you to just opt for a c section because it’s dangerous compared to regular birth.

1