 |
 |
Apologies, Amy, I was trying to save myself the effort of going back over previous emails and did not spell out the discussions. Just to remind ourselves: 1. We discussed the subject back in May in the thread on Chronic Disease self management, which included a discussion on a review published by the Health Foundation. 2. In these past few weeks we have discussed the fact that systematic reviews on the same subject can conflict. Even reviews by trusted experts can be misleading and still need some awareness on the part of the reader and clinician, a subject I discussed in a comparison of 3 reviews on the same topic. Kev On 22 Sep 2011, at 20:58, Dr. Amy Price wrote: > Dear Kev and all, > > All good points Kev, but we were asked an either/or question. We possibly need to consider at what point the provider will reach a saturation point in the amount of data they are willing to assimilate. The interpretation of evidence can be changed by the data the human has to work with or what portion of this they choose to embrace so the relationship between evidence, voice and interpretation is dynamic. I am new at EBM and may not have gleaned accurately or realised the impact of earlier discussions here. I did very much like the concept of GRADE mentioned earlier. > > Amy > > From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of k.hopayian > Sent: 22 September 2011 03:25 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: CATS and POEMS > > With respect, Amy, you are only 33.333% correct: summary based evidence is simpler to read. > But fewer complications? How about bias (conscious/unconscious) on the part of the reviewers? How about poor quality summaries that are not comprehensive or do not appraise studies correctly for validity? We have discussed examples of these on this list before. > And the evidence never speaks. It has no voice. Humans interpret it. > Kev Hopayian > On 22 Sep 2011, at 19:53, Dr. Amy Price wrote: > > > Dear Carlos and all, > > As a mental health consultant, I find my colleagues value a summary based on the evidence as this is simpler, has fewer complications and lets the body of evidence speak > > Amy > > Amy Price PhD > Http://empower2go.org > Building Brain Potential > > > > From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr. Carlos Cuello > Sent: 22 September 2011 01:47 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: CATS and POEMS > > What does the clinician want? OR What is better for his/her daily practice? One single critically appraised article (relevant and valid although it might not give a definite answer when facing a clinical problem) or a summary of the evidence, based on a specific clinical question? > > I know they are not mutually exclusive, and they both have specific value, but where should we aim our efforts? > > I am attaching my blog post > > Comments are welcome > > > > -- > Carlos A. Cuello-García, MD > >