Could this be magic? Magic has always been a fascinating subject for humans throughout history. From ancient times to modern-day, people have been captivated by the idea of supernatural powers and unexplained phenomena. But what exactly is magic, and could it be a real phenomenon? Magic is often defined as the use of supernatural powers or forces to influence events, control outcomes, or achieve specific results that cannot be explained by natural laws. It is associated with spells, rituals, incantations, and the manipulation of mystical energy. Many ancient cultures believed in the existence of magic and practiced various forms of it, such as witchcraft, shamanism, and spellcasting. In today's world, magic is often dismissed as mere illusion or trickery.
Psychotherapy involves a variety of techniques. During psychotherapy, you’ll talk with a mental health professional who will help you identify hypomania symptoms and triggers and learn ways to cope with or lessen the effects of hypomanic episodes.
To be diagnosed with hypomania, your mental health specialist may follow the criteria of the American Psychiatric Association s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5. If you ve been diagnosed with hypomania, you can have a favorable outcome if you learn about your condition, learn to recognize when you re having a hypomanic episode and engage in coping strategies to lessen the severity or prevent events.
In today's world, magic is often dismissed as mere illusion or trickery. Stage magicians and illusionists perform elaborate tricks that leave audiences amazed and wondering how they were done. These tricks are based on sleight of hand, misdirection, and advanced technology, rather than actual supernatural abilities.
Could this be maic
Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) studies are a particular type of indirect comparison which uses propensity score weighting to adjust different populations across clinical trials and enhance comparability.1 Indirect comparison studies have emerged as a feasible option in the absence of head-to-head trials when there is a need to compare two or more technologies and the only evidence available is the pivotal trial against placebo or single-arm trials. In the first case, the MAIC study is anchored by the common element between studies.1 In the absence of such, the study is called unanchored, and its premises should be stronger.1
In the context of Health Technology Assessments (HTA), explicit methods are employed to ascertain a health technology’s value to inform the decision-making process.2 Therefore, intended and unintended consequences of such technology compared with other alternatives for the same health condition are a part of its value.2 Furthermore, the result of this process should be the promotion of an equitable health system,2 in a context of a finite budget and many pressuring factors such as expensive and emerging technologies.
Therefore, all available evidence is gathered and appraised as to the amount of confidence one can place in the body of evidence about a research question. Recently, the HTA concept was revised so that the term ‘all available evidence’ was updated to ‘the best available evidence’.2 MAIC analysis has been employed in HTA submissions in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK.1 As of 2018, NICE had accepted six MAIC-containing submissions, and already expressed concerns regarding the lack of information on prognostic and effect-modifying variables.3 Another comment suggested that MAIC evidence could be equivalent to observational studies.4
Recently, MAIC evidence has been presented in submissions for reimbursements in the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS) in Brazil. According to Brazilian legislation, all new technologies should be compared with the therapeutical arsenal already available.5 As such, if an HTA submission presents a comparison against a placebo, it may wrongly suggest that the population which can benefit from the reimbursement decision is unassisted by the public system. Therefore, evidence synthesis conducted on behalf of CONITEC (National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies in the National Health System), is preferably conducted considering active comparators.6 In the absence of evidence from head-to-head trials, HTA centres, which are responsible for conducting analysis, often employ indirect comparisons. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is the most common, whether they are already published and can be critically appraised, or they are conducted by the HTA centre itself. NMA studies should always be ‘anchored’, scrutinised for heterogeneity, and may be plagued by intransitivity. The latter is a vital consideration for the correct employment of the methodology.
MAIC studies could occupy this place, where NMA methodology may lack applicability. Theoretically, MAIC can only be applied when standard methods of indirect comparison, namely NMA, are likely to produce imprecise relative treatment effects.1 For instance, when NMA analyses are built with sparse data or when it is expected that effect modifiers will influence the effect estimates.
However, the premises and effect modifier variables should be disclosed and transparent for scrutiny, if not for the sake of open science, but for the sake of decision-makers. There can be a lack of confidence in the evidence presented when MAIC studies are poorly reported. Furthermore, in evidence synthesis, more confidence is due to superior study designs, for instance, randomised clinical trial evidence over single-arm observational or non-randomised studies of intervention evidence. In this context, it is not known how MAIC analyses compare with evidence produced from more traditional epidemiological methods. Additionally, when there are both MAIC and NMA analyses available for the same research question, it is not known which estimate is the best available evidence.
The study of oncology has evolved from regular chemotherapy to highly specialised target and immunotherapy.7 The process in which these interventions work is arguably different from its predecessors, which implicated the use of novel modelling techniques.7 From a health system perspective, as the population ages and cancer prevalence increases, the effervescent market for new oncology drugs adds pressure to limited budgets and forces market access agreements.7 Moreover, in the field of oncology, it can be difficult to perform head-to-head trials, either for the simultaneous research and development processes or the reluctance of patients to partake in trials where they could be randomised to placebo.7 Single-arm trials have been progressively used, as have indirect comparisons to generate evidence for decision-makers.7 In the absence of sufficient data to undertake HTA, premises are needed which have the potential to introduce bias and uncertainty.8 In turn, if HTA analysis does not reflect reality properly, resource allocation could be compromised.8 Although uncertainty can be considered a part of HTA, it is necessary to judge how much uncertainty is acceptable in a body of evidence.9 Moreover, it could be beneficial for HTA organisations to be consistent when evaluating the same evidence.9
Hence, our scoping review will seek to analyse how MAIC studies differ in terms of rationale, choice of scales and status of effect modifiers. We will also seek to ascertain which institutions publish MAIC, mapping the main characteristics, concepts and methodology aspects from MAIC studies used in the evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological therapies in the field of oncology.
However, there are some instances that make us question whether there might be more to magic than just smoke and mirrors. Throughout history, there have been countless reports of individuals with extraordinary powers and abilities that cannot be explained by science. These include telekinesis, mind reading, levitation, and even shape-shifting. While many of these claims may seem far-fetched, there are some cases that have sparked scientific interest. For example, there have been documented cases of individuals who claim to have the ability to heal others through touch or energy manipulation. While these claims are often met with skepticism, there are some medical professionals and researchers who acknowledge the potential benefits of alternative healing methods and the role of energy in the body. Furthermore, there have been various studies conducted on the power of meditation, visualization, and intention to manifest desired outcomes. The field of quantum physics explores the idea that consciousness and the observer have a direct influence on the physical world, blurring the lines between science and spirituality. While these phenomena may not fit the traditional definition of magic, they do challenge our understanding of reality and open up possibilities for further exploration. Could it be that what we perceive as magic is simply a manifestation of our untapped potential and the undiscovered laws of the universe? In conclusion, the question of whether magic is real or just an elaborate illusion remains open for debate. While science can explain many of the phenomena that were once attributed to magic, there are still unexplained occurrences and experiences that make us question the boundaries of what is possible. Perhaps, in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, we are gradually uncovering the secrets of what could be considered magic..
Reviews for "The Power of Illusion: How Magicians Manipulate Perception"
1. Alice - 2/5
I was really disappointed with "Could this be magic". The plot felt predictable and cliché, with the same tired tropes of a main character discovering their magical abilities and saving the world. The writing style was also lackluster, with flat and unoriginal descriptions. Overall, I found the book to be unengaging and unoriginal, and I would not recommend it to anyone looking for a fresh and exciting magical adventure.
2. John - 1/5
I couldn't even finish "Could this be magic". The characters were one-dimensional and lacked any depth or development. The dialogue felt forced and unnatural, making it hard for me to connect with any of the characters or the story. The pacing was also incredibly slow, with nothing happening for long stretches of time. Overall, I found the book to be boring and poorly written, and I would not recommend it to anyone.
3. Emily - 2/5
I had high hopes for "Could this be magic", but unfortunately, it fell short for me. The world-building was weak, with little explanation or exploration of the magical elements introduced in the story. The plot felt scattered and disjointed, with too many subplots and side characters that added nothing to the overall story. The main character was also unrelatable and lacked any real motivation. Overall, I found the book to be underwhelming and a missed opportunity for a great magical adventure.