Dr John Snow and an early investigation of groundwater contamination

John Snow was a physician but his studies of the way in which cholera is spread have long attracted the interest of hydrogeologists. From his investigation into the epidemiology of the cholera outbreak around the well in Broad Street, London, in 1854, Snow gained valuable evidence that cholera is spread by contamination of drinking water. Subsequent research by others showed that the well was contaminated by sewage. The study therefore represents one of the first, if not the first, study of an incident of groundwater contamination in Britain. Although he had no formal geological training, it is clear that Snow had a much better understanding of groundwater than many modern medical practitioners. At the time of the outbreak Snow was continuing his practice as a physician and anaesthetist. His casebooks for 1854 do not even mention cholera. Yet, nearly 150 years later, he is as well known for his work on cholera as for his pioneering work on anaesthesia, and his discoveries are still the subject of controversy.

The significance of "nonsignificance" in randomized controlled studies: a discussion inspired by a double-blinded study on St. John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) for premenstrual symptoms

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of St. John's wort extract (SJW) as a treatment for premenstrual symptoms. Design: The study was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, with two parallel treatment groups. After a no-treatment baseline cycle, volunteers were randomized to either SJW or placebo for a further two menstrual cycles. Settings/location: A postal trial conducted from The University of Reading, Berkshire, England. Subjects: One hundred and sixty-nine (169) normally menstruating women who experienced recurrent premenstrual symptoms were recruited onto the study. One hundred and twenty-five (125) completed the protocol and were included in the analysis. Interventions: Six hundred milligrams (600) mg of SJW (standardized to contain 1800 mug of hypericin) or placebo (containing lactose and cellulose). Outcome measure: A menstrual diary was used to assess changes in premenstrual symptoms. The anxiety-related subgroup of symptoms of this instrument was used as the primary outcome measure. Results: After averaging the effects of treatment over both treatment cycles it was found that there was a trend for SJW to be superior to placebo. However, this finding was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The possibility that this nonsignificant finding resulted from insufficient statistical power in the study, rather than a lack of efficacy of SJW, is discussed. Following this discussion the recommendation is made that, in future, similar studies should be powered to detect a minimum clinically relevant difference between treatments.

The significance of "nonsignificance" in randomized controlled studies: a discussion inspired by a double-blinded study on St. John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) for premenstrual symptoms

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of St. John's wort extract (SJW) as a treatment for premenstrual symptoms. Design: The study was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, with two parallel treatment groups. After a no-treatment baseline cycle, volunteers were randomized to either SJW or placebo for a further two menstrual cycles. Settings/location: A postal trial conducted from The University of Reading, Berkshire, England. Subjects: One hundred and sixty-nine (169) normally menstruating women who experienced recurrent premenstrual symptoms were recruited onto the study. One hundred and twenty-five (125) completed the protocol and were included in the analysis. Interventions: Six hundred milligrams (600) mg of SJW (standardized to contain 1800 mug of hypericin) or placebo (containing lactose and cellulose). Outcome measure: A menstrual diary was used to assess changes in premenstrual symptoms. The anxiety-related subgroup of symptoms of this instrument was used as the primary outcome measure. Results: After averaging the effects of treatment over both treatment cycles it was found that there was a trend for SJW to be superior to placebo. However, this finding was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The possibility that this nonsignificant finding resulted from insufficient statistical power in the study, rather than a lack of efficacy of SJW, is discussed. Following this discussion the recommendation is made that, in future, similar studies should be powered to detect a minimum clinically relevant difference between treatments.