Trusting an RCT < 24 m old implies believing the last you read in a
non-bayesian manner. What does "best evidence"compile to now for a certain
question, and how should "new" evidence be incorporated?
Given the question: Is zinc effective in reducing the duration of the common
cold,
I: reading the last paper on this in Ann Int Med would make you believe that
Zinc lozenges reduce the duration of the common cold with 3.3 days,
II: reading "Zinc for the common cold" in the Cochrane library would make
you say that "we need more studies", while
III: reading Clinical evidence on the common cold would make you tell your
patients "Zinc lozenges do not reduce the lengh of the common cold"
we need a systematic approach to the literature/best evidence, and as a busy
GP I find Clinical Evidence my best choice.
STILL- best evidence alone is never sufficient, patient values and
preferences have to be incorporated
Dr. Atle Klovning, MD
GP, Norway
> From: preston <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: preston <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:58:52 -0700
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Is EBM Effective?
>
> RCT less than 24 months old.
> --
> Preston H. Long
>
>> From: "Djulbegovic, Benjamin" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: "Djulbegovic, Benjamin" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:41:27 -0400
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Is EBM Effective?
>>
>> But, how do you define "the most current and up to date info"?
>> ben
|