Dear List
Many thanks to Juan for sharing this eye-opening systematic review. It
is interesting that the authors' 2015 systematic review, assessing the same
research question among patients, found similar problem (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25531451)
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25531451>. The authors conclude
that "Clinicians
should discuss accurate and balanced information about intervention
benefits and harms with patients, providing the opportunity to develop
realistic expectations and make informed decisions.". The authors' current
systematic review among clinicians tells us that *clinicians themselves
underestimates the harm and over estimate the benefits. *My question: What
should be done for solving this :
BOTH patients and clinicians have SIMILAR problem: Overestimating of
benefits & Underestimating of the harms. How clinicians can solve the
problem of patients while they have same problem? What are you
suggestions?
I am looking forward to receive your ideas. I hope this list will have a good
discussion about these two systematic reviews.
Best regards, Mohammad
*Mohammad Zakaria Pezeshki, M.D.Associate ProfessorDepartment of Community
Medicine,Tabriz Medical School, Golgasht Avenue, Tabriz, Iran,Tel: ++ 98
413 336 46 73Fax: ++ 98 413 336 46 68*
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Los médicos clínicos suelen sobre-esperar beneficios y sobre-ignorar daños
> de tratamientos/cribados/pruebas.
> *Clinicians’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments,
> Screening, and Tests. Clinicians more often underestimated rather than
> overestimated harms and overestimated rather than underestimated benefits.*
> http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/
> article-abstract/2596010
> -un saludo juan gérvas
>
