{"id":75,"date":"2016-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-08-31T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/defranciscolaw.lawblogger.net\/blog\/a-common-treatment-doesnt-necessarily-equal-an-effective-one\/"},"modified":"2017-08-31T18:29:56","modified_gmt":"2017-08-31T22:29:56","slug":"a-common-treatment-doesnt-necessarily-equal-an-effective-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.defranciscolaw.com\/blog\/a-common-treatment-doesnt-necessarily-equal-an-effective-one\/","title":{"rendered":"A common treatment doesn\u2019t necessarily equal an effective one"},"content":{"rendered":"

When receiving a treatment that a doctor recommended, patients generally trust that the treatment is one that actually has the potential to help them with their particular medical condition. Unnecessary treatments can have negative consequences for patients, as some treatments can have risks associated with them that patients would be needlessly exposed to if they were given the treatment when it was not likely to have a positive effect. So, one would generally hope doctors would be taking evidence of effectiveness into account when deciding what treatments to recommend.<\/p>\n

However, a recent article on the Washington Post\u2019s website<\/a> indicates that some treatments have remained common despite the fact that recent research had pointed to them not being as effective in as wide of range of circumstances as was initially thought. The three common treatments that the article identified as being in this category were:<\/p>\n