Articles like this that anger CRNAs

Ok

So in a quest to learn more about my future profession, ive been doing alot of research.

http://nursing.fiu.edu/anesthesiolog.../Abenstein.pdf

This appears to be exactly the type of article that creates division and anger in the CRNA/MDA relationship. Written by MDAs, this article does an excellent job of taking limited stats, non-statistical signifigant numbers with low N and p values, and weaving it into a "MDAs look better" proposition. They say it over and over again then add reality here and there with "but the numbers are not statistically signifigant" and " a true cross section study with N values large enough to make valid claims would be "costly and possibly unethical"". Essentially, what i see is this: We know the numbers wont bear out our claims if we do large numbers, so why not make unscientific infrences from the weak N values we have to lobby politically.

How frustrating.