Find a study which is relevant to clinical practice and has a new/unexpected outcome.
One expert takes the "point" position the other takes the "counterpoint" position.
Each expert independently dissects the paper and comes up with 5 points. One will have five points in favor of supporting why we should believe the outcome. The other will have 5 points showing why the outcome is probably not valid.
Essentially what we're trying to find out is should our practice change in some way based on the findings?
We will do 3 papers per month and alternate the point counterpoint positions.
The first will be Dr. Lee and Dr. Laidlaw with the paper "Does hypoglycaemia increase the risk of cardiovascular events? A report from the ORIGIN trial".
The program will work as follows:
1. 3 papers chosen per month
2. The person choosing the paper for that week will be "point". (The person choosing the next week's paper will be counterpoint).
3. Upload the paper to Zotero and notify via the blog (title of paper and abstract ideally).
4. On Thu each expert will separately post their 5 points and counterpoints.
5. Then anyone can chime in with comments and potentially come to some consensus thought on the matter.
Let the games begin!