For your consideration:
I have mentioned it before, but in different terms, so I want to clarify the appeal to avoid an inaccurate meme or theme that I keep seeing here & in related documents.
Please consider not using the word ‘clinicians’ when what is meant is ‘clinician-scientists designing & conducting studies like clinical studies such as clinical trials.’
Conflating these two ideas no-to-so-subtly suggests clinician-scientists haven’t spent years specifically learning to conduct research. The truth is that by definition someone is not a clinician-scientist and shouldn’t be designing trials–and almost certainly isn’t–if they haven’t received substantial education in research, well beyond what is provided to clinicians in medical school.
Let us not perpetuate this error of ‘trimming off’ clinician-scientists’ years of research training when describing them. This creates a totally unnecessary rift based on a false premise (the research-trained vs. the naive). I propose the usual rift (Bayes vs. freq) is hard enough work.
I would go so far as to suggest that prior mentions of ‘clinician’ to mean ‘trained clinician-scientist’ be edited for correctness / precision.