Dear Dan,
I got the opportunity to write some really nice things about you book for a newspaper editor form NY!
I am enclosing 2 abstracts from my recent articles on EBM which might interest you .You have seen a part of these topics being presented in various conferences.
I hope Julie is doing well. Kindly convey my warm regards to her
Best wishes,
Amit Ghosh
Ghosh AK.
On the challenges of using evidence-based information: The role of clinical uncertainty . J Lab Clin Med 2004 Aug; 144 (2):60-64
Abstract:
Evidence-based medicine helps physicians appraise the latest and best evidence and incorporate patient's values in reaching a shared clinical decision. However, many decisions in medicine are made in the paucity of best evidence. Medical uncertainty remains inherent in clinical practice and contributes to significant variability in the way physicians and patients manage medical problems. Physicians and patients have varying degrees of tolerance for uncertainty. Intolerance to uncertainty among physicians results in increased test ordering tendencies, variability in medical treatment, failure to comply with evidence-based guidelines, and even guide career choices. Factors that result in the variability of physicians' interpretation of an effective treatment include: patient factors (prioritizing some factors over others), physician factors (lack of knowledge, lack of resources, medical uncertainty), and environmental factors (limitation of time and practice). Several approach!
es that have been found useful in implementing evidence in clinical practice include: sending reminders to prompt physicians to perform patient-related clinical activities, introducing computer information systems to support practice, and using interactive education interventions to teach newer skills and challenge negative attitudes. Passive educational approaches, like dissemination of guidelines and didactic lectures, are usually less useful in changing behavior. Among the techniques found to be useful for managing uncertainty are shared decision making, meticulous history taking, and physical examination, excluding worrisome differential diagnosis and establishing trust in patients. The role of future studies in assessing the outcome of multiple evidence-based strategies in situations of medical uncertainty remains to be explored.
Murali NS, Murali HR, Auethavekiat P, Erwin PJ, Mandrekar JN, Manek NJ, Ghosh AK
Impact of FUTON and NAA bias on visibility of research. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004 Aug;79(8):1001-6.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether availability of journals on MEDLINE as FUTON (full text on the Net) affects their impact factor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive search identified 324 cardiology, nephrology, and rheumatology/immunology journals on-line until May 2003. The status of these journals was ascertained in MEDLINE as having FUTON, abstracts only, and NAA (no abstract available). Impact factors for all available journals from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) were abstracted. RESULTS: Of the 324 Journals, 124 (38.3%) were FUTON, 138 (42.6%) had abstracts only, and 62 (19.1%) had NAA. The mean (+/-SEM) impact factor was 3.24 (+/-0.32), 1.64 (+/-0.30), and 0.14 (+/-0.45), respectively. Of the 324 current journals, 159 existed in both the pre- and the post-Internet era. An analysis of the change (ie, delta) in impact factor from the pre- to post-Internet era revealed a trend between journals with FUTON and abstracts only (P=.17, Wilcoxon rank sum test)!
. Similar analyses of the delta of cardiology journals revealed a statistically significant difference between Journals with FUTON and abstracts only (P=.04, Wilcoxon rank sum test). CONCLUSION: FUTON bias is the tendency to peruse what is more readily available. This is the first study to show that on-line availability of medical literature may increase the impact factor and that such increase tends to be greater in FUTON journals. Failure to consider this bias may affect a journal's impact factor. Also, it could limit consideration of medical literature by ignoring relevant NAA articles and thereby influence medical education akin to publication or language bias.
|