the paper attracted my attention too. My immediate reaction was not in terms of age experience but in terms of expert experience. Do "experts" provide better care (regardless of age)? I think that is a crucial question- the current medical system is dominated by experts. What is evidence that it is justified?
ben
Benjamin Djulbegovic, MD,PhD
Professor of Oncology and Medicine
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
at the University of South Florida
Department of Interdisciplinary Oncology
SRB #4, Floor 4, Rm #24031 (Rm# West 31)
12902 Magnolia Drive
Tampa, FL 33612
Editor: Cancer Treatment Reviews (Evidence-based Oncology Section)
http://www.harcourt-international.com/journals/ctrv/
e-mail:[log in to unmask]
http://www.hsc.usf.edu/~bdjulbeg/
phone:(813)979-7202
fax:(813)979-3071
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Poses, Roy
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 5:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: are older doctors dumber?
The results of a systematic review in the Annals of Internal Medicine have created headlines around the US. Most, like this one from the Boston Globe (Greater Risk Seen With Older Doctors <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/02/15/greater_risk_seen_with_older_doctors/> ), suggest that older doctors are, well, dumber than younger ones. My wife, seeing the headline, and observing that I had progressed to a certain age, said this morning, "shouldn't you look into this one." So I did.
The study in the Annals of Internal Medicine <http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/142/4/260> [Choudry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB. Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 260-273] searched the literature search to find 62 articles that analyzed physician knowledge or performance according to the the physicians' age. Summaries of the 62 studies were broken down by study purpose: 12 involved written tests of knowledge; 17, adherence to guidelines or practice standards for diagnosis, screening, or prevention assessed by self-report, e.g., by surveys or interviews; 7, adherence to such standards assessed by chart audit; 5, adherence to guidelines or practice standards for treatment assessed by self-report; 13, adherence to guidelines or practice standards for treatment assessed by chart audit; and 7, directly measured patient outcomes.
The review did not screen out articles of poor methodologic quality, or rate the methodologic quality of any article. So it did not eliminate articles whose specific standards for physician performance were not evidence-based, such as tests of knowledge not related to the physicians' practices. Furthermore, it included articles regardless of their study architecture, age, sample size, patient selection criteria, whether and how they controlled for patients' characteristics, and effect size and its precision. Thus, this review's results could well have been biased by poorly designed or performed studies, and studies which are unlikely to generalize to modern physicians.
I did not have time to re-review every article, but a quick perusal made me more concerned that the most striking results showing older physicians performing worse were contributed by the methodologically weakest articles. For example, of the 13 articles that looked at adherence to standards for treatment by chart audit, only 6 showed what the authors called a consistently negative effect of increasing age. Of these,
* one was published 34 years ago, and included only 37 physicians;
* one, of treatment of depression, did not account for the severity of the patients' symptoms, and had a very small effect size (OR=1.12, CI 1.01, 1.24);
* one used a standard of care for inappropriate drug selection that might be debated;
* one used that same standard, did not adjust for patients' clinical characteristics, and had a very small effect size (OR=1.14);
* one was published 21 years ago, and used practice standards defined by consensus, not evidence; and
* one was published 20 years ago, included only 66 physicians, and again used practice standards defined by a panel, not evidence.
The article failed to acknowledge the methodologic weaknesses of the studies it summarized. But I am very concerned that its conclusions were biased by these weakness. Thus I think its basic conclusion, that older doctors are dumber, is not strongly supported by the evidence.
Yet an accompanying commentary <http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/142/4/302> , [Weinberger SE, Duffy FD, Cassel CK. "Practice makes perfect" ... or does it? Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 302-303.], hailed the article as showing that physicians "must embrace the concepts behind maintenance of certification, which provides an opportunity to prevent the outcomes demonstrated...." Since Choudry's review did not include any studies of recertification, I think this conclusion goes even farther beyond its data.
Even though physicians seem beset on all sides by powerful organizations, sometimes that stand to profit by reducing physician autonomy, I believe that our professional values mandate serious, ongoing examination of our own performance. (I have actually published a few studies which do just that.) However, the principles of clinical epidemiology apply to such studies just as they apply to studies of patients. We do no one any favors by rushing to negative conclusions about physician performance without examining the strength of the relevant evidence.
What do you all think?
I just posted this on Health Care Renewal as well (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com) as http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/02/are-older-doctors-dumber.html. Please feel free to post comments there as well.
Roy M. Poses MD
Center for Primary Care and Prevention
111 Brewster St.
Pawtucket
RI 02860
401 729-3400
fax 401 729-2494
email: [log in to unmask]
######################################################################
This transmission may be confidential or protected from disclosure and
is only for review and use by the intended recipient. Access by
anyone else is unauthorized. Any unauthorized reader is hereby
notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of
this information, or any act or omission taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this transmission in
error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
######################################################################
|
