Why were the benefits of tPA exaggerated?: The role of interpretation bias

Why were the benefits of tPA exaggerated?The role of interpretation bias News magazine US News and World Report began an article about thrombolytic treatment of acute stroke with the following anecdote:One Wednesday morning in January, 36-year-old Laurie Lucas was rushing about, dressing her daughters for school and talking on the phone, when a strange confusion swept over her.She felt woozy.Her right arm flailed about and her right leg went weak.Paramedics arriving at Lucas's Sanford, Florida, home thought she was having epileptic seizures, but brain scans revealed a blockage of an artery that supplies the brain with blood.Lucas, a physically fit former professional cheerleader, had suffered a massive stroke . . .If Lucas had been stricken a year ago, before a new treatment was developed, she almost certainly would have died. 1(p62) This story is interesting but misleading.It is not plausible that physicians could accurately conclude that Laurie Lucas "almost certainly would have died" without treatment.Nor is it true that "massive" strokes are likely to benefit from thrombolytic treatment. 2In addition to several anecdotes, the US News and World Report article includes "expert" testimony in which prominent physicians exaggerate the efficacy and effectiveness of the new treatment........