Gareth,
In my experience, the alternative is implicit, more or less judicious use of whatever evidence is top-of-mind (or serves the speaker's financial interests in the case of a lecture I just heard) in decision making. Sometimes this produces accurate, valuable information. In other cases, it produces the conclusion that TZDs are preferred to metformin. The key difference is the reliability and transparency of the methods.
By the way, as long as we're on definitions, Evidence-based Healthcare better expresses what we are working on.
Jim
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
James M. Walker, M.D.
Chief Medical Information Officer
Geisinger Health System
[log in to unmask]
570 271-6750
Internal Mail Code 30-06
>>> Gareth Morgan <[log in to unmask]> 05/25/05 3:53 AM >>>
Hi
I have been a member of this mailbase for quite a while and would like to
start a debate about definitions. I finally decided to look for a
definition of evidence based medicine and this is one I came up with.
* Evidence-based medicine is a medical movement based upon the
application of the scientific method to medical practice, including
long-established existing medical traditions not yet subjected to adequate
scientific scrutiny. According to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine,
"Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use
of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual
patients."
*
<http://www.google.se//url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_based_medicine>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_based_medicine
The definition is what I expected and seems to be quite obvious but the
problem I have is what is the alternative to EBM - myths and legends, old
wives tales? Surely all medicine/medical practice (in my limited
understanding) should be based on evidence and "conscientious, explicit and
judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care
of individual patients." . Am I missing something here, being a heretic or
is this a case of "the kings new clothes"?
Most reports seem top take it for granted that there is an mass/group
understanding of what it is all about.
Grateful for responses
With best wishes,
Gareth
http://www.ki.se/biomedlab
e-mail [log in to unmask]
Tel +46 8 5858 1038
Fax +46 8 5858 7730
Gareth Morgan MPhil MSc FIBMS,
Department of Histo/cytopathology, Laboratory Medicine (Labmed),
Karolinska Institute,
Karolinska University Hospital at Huddinge, F46
SE 141 86 Stockholm
Sweden
OBS! Besöksadress: F-Huset, Forskningsgatan 2 F52, Rum 2.10. Laboratoriet
för klinisk patologi och cytologi.
NB! Visiting address: Building F, Research Corridor 2 F52, Room 2.10.
Clinical Histo- and Cytopathology Laboratory.
IMPORTANT WARNING: The information in this message (and the documents attached to it, if any) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken, or omitted to be taken, in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message (and the documents attached to it, if any), destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately by replying to this email. Thank you.
|