-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Deyoung [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 2:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: What proportion of practice is evidence based?
For reasons I can not discern I am unable to post to the list. At least I
thought I could respond to you as individuals (feel free to forward to the
listserv if you like):
In response to Jeanne Lenzer:
I think the goal of "lowering costs" is intended to be read as "providing
the highest value". If we can do the same job (same outcome accounting for
efficacy, safety, et al.) with a less expensive agent then surely the job
of EBM is to promote such efforts. The goal is perhaps more simply stated
as not to be wasteful.
Your second point about industry funding and EBM is of particular interest
because of a like discussion recently on another list-serv. I would submit
that of course such a study is EBM if it has been evaluated in light of EBM
principles and found to be sound. I don't believe the principles of EBM
disallow or necessarily penalize findings based on funding. If so, there
is even less evidence to consider than I thought. :-)
Bob
G. Robert DeYoung, PharmD, BCPS
SMMMC and Advantage Health
200 Jefferson SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
>>> Jeanne Lenzer <[log in to unmask]> Tuesday, September 19, 2000 09:24:45
>>>
Dear Andrew Booth -
thank you so much for the wonderful compilation. It's a very important
issue. I was intrigued by the reference to the "evidence-based medicine"
of Dr Califf at Duke: I wonder how other listmembers feel about EBM having
as it's goal the "lowering of costs" - while I like the idea it seems like
as big a conflict of interest as the fee for service aspect of much medical
practice. Secondly, and very disturbingly, his flagship study on tpa vs.
strepto was sponsored by Genentech - is that EBM???
jeanne lenzer
-----Original Message-----
From: A.Booth [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 8:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: What proportion of practice is evidence based?
A much overdue update of my compendium on the percentage of
practice that is evidence based has just taken place.
Specialties now covered include:
General Medicine General Practice Anaethesia
Dermatology Haematology, Clinical Haematology, Malignant
Medicare procedures Oncology Paediatrics Paediatric
Surgery Psychiatry Surgery Surgery, Endoscopic
Surgery, Laparoscopic Surgery, Paediatric Surgery,
Thoracic
with at least 6 new studies being added from the past year. The
location remains unchanged at:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~scharr/ir/percent.html
Thanks expecially to Scott Richardson for suggestions. If anyone
knows of any other studies please let me know at:
[log in to unmask]
Andrew
Andrew Booth BA MSc Dip Lib ALA
Director of Information Resources and
Senior Lecturer - Evidence Based Healthcare Information.
School of Health & Related Research (ScHARR)
Regent Court
30 Regent Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 4DA
Tel: 0114 222 5420 or 5214 Fax: 0114 272 4095
The author of Netting the Evidence:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~scharr/ir/netting.html
and Trawling the Net:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~scharr/ir/trawling.html
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|