Excellent article! Thank you for teaching me the memorable overview of the topic, and attempting to spread curiosity!
One point of feedback for readability, and please don’t mistake the verbosity of the feedback for strength of evaluation relative to what I’ve already said; it really is an excellent article:
In the absolute worst-case situation, this should lead us to bump our DALYs for endometriosis up by 60%. Starting with a base DALY of 56.61 per 100k people, this leads us to 141.52.
This paragraph (and perhaps the surrounding couple paragraphs in either direction) was hard for me to follow, and this might indicate an outright error, though I’m not at all confident that is the case.
My interpretation of the preceding paragraphs was something like “in the study, they found 27 cases already diagnosed, and then 37 more for a total of 64 when they made a more thorough search” which would be a ~2.4× (64/27) multiplicative increase, or a 140% increase, but not a 60% increase? I’m guessing the 60% came from 37⁄64. “60% of extant cases were overlooked” seems leading to me, but “bump up by 60%” seems misleading to me.
I stopped evaluating the math past that point, and I don’t feel that this harmed my overall understanding of the article, nor the argument in the call to action; I still understood the point that “endometriosis is probably even more underfunded than it looks”, and took it on faith that the true numbers minus my confusion would still bear that out.
I’m not sure how exactly I’d rewrite the text for clarity, nor that it would even be correct to do so; maybe this is a good version for maximizing reader comprehension and I’m simply one of the rare failures there, but, well, one data point for you that it might be worth workshopping.
Excellent article! Thank you for teaching me the memorable overview of the topic, and attempting to spread curiosity!
One point of feedback for readability, and please don’t mistake the verbosity of the feedback for strength of evaluation relative to what I’ve already said; it really is an excellent article:
This paragraph (and perhaps the surrounding couple paragraphs in either direction) was hard for me to follow, and this might indicate an outright error, though I’m not at all confident that is the case.
My interpretation of the preceding paragraphs was something like “in the study, they found 27 cases already diagnosed, and then 37 more for a total of 64 when they made a more thorough search” which would be a ~2.4× (64/27) multiplicative increase, or a 140% increase, but not a 60% increase? I’m guessing the 60% came from 37⁄64. “60% of extant cases were overlooked” seems leading to me, but “bump up by 60%” seems misleading to me.
I stopped evaluating the math past that point, and I don’t feel that this harmed my overall understanding of the article, nor the argument in the call to action; I still understood the point that “endometriosis is probably even more underfunded than it looks”, and took it on faith that the true numbers minus my confusion would still bear that out.
I’m not sure how exactly I’d rewrite the text for clarity, nor that it would even be correct to do so; maybe this is a good version for maximizing reader comprehension and I’m simply one of the rare failures there, but, well, one data point for you that it might be worth workshopping.