JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH  November 2006

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH November 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Accounts of Clinical Bases for weighing evidence

From:

Sharon Sanders <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sharon Sanders <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:59:45 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (174 lines)

Hello.  These recent references might answer, in part, some of the
questions below...

Alper BS, White DS, Ge B.    Physicians answer more clinical questions
and change clinical decisions more often with synthesized evidence: a
randomized trial in primary care.Ann Fam Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;3(6):507-13 

Coumou HC, Meijman FJ. How do primary care physicians seek answers to
clinical questions? A literature review.  J Med Libr Assoc. 2006
Jan;94(1):55-60.

Best wishes,
Sharon Sanders
University of Queensland
Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of K Mendis
Sent: Wednesday, 22 November 2006 4:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Accounts of Clinical Bases for weighing evidence

Hi All,

I was about to ask a question somewhat related to Matt's so might as
well ask now:

Have there been any studies done to ascertain what type of evidence
CLINICIANS use? 
To make it more specific - do they use synopsis, synthesized or studies
in real-time?

We see the immense popularity of the 'high-end synopsis' type sources
such as UpToDate. (some wonder whether they are more 'Eminence Based')  

Has there been any studies comparing the above with integrated search
environments such as OVID where you can search Medline, EMBASE, EBMR
(including Cochrane), PsycInfo at once?
Or
if you are thinking of public domain resources - PubMed Clinical queries
(either systematic reviews or a specific study category?  

Dan just wrote:
"How about if we call EBM just another way of saying that we are
improving the abilities of physicians to be good critical thinkers?....
The more critically we approach our own interpretation of the evidence,
and know when to let someone else (EBM leaders, drug companies, textbook
publishers) inform our thoughts about that, the better we can serve our
patients."

With TIME as a limiting factor can we expect the practising clinicians
to use at least 'PubMed Clinical Queries' / OVID? Or Does it matter very
much if they depend on UpToDate type of resources to advice the
patients? 

Kumara

-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kumara Mendis
MBBS, MSc (Medical Informatics), MD (Family Medicine) Senior Lecturer
School of Rural Health University of Sydney
Tel: +61  6885 7996
Mob:+61 427 141 112
----------------------------------------------------- 

-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Mayer
Sent: Wednesday, 22 November 2006 2:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Accounts of Clinical Bases for weighing evidence

Hi Matt,

This is probably the BIG question in EBM.  Is there an absolute value of
any evidence?  Can we define it with a single number or classification
system?
Or, as the postmoderns say, is all evidence so value laden as to be
basically meaningless EXCEPT in context, and then (in the extreme)
interpretable by anyone in any way.

Having said it this way, I tend to lean towards the postmodernists
(never thought that I would hear myself saying that) in that the value
of any evidence lies in the context in which it is interpreted and used.
 

Two IIa level studies may look at slightly different populations,
slightly different outcomes, or slightly different interventions.  How
we decide to use them will depend on the context of our patient, and the
values of our patient, ourselves, and our society. 

EBM cannot be a one size fits all.  I have heard it said that "EBM does
not define truth, truth defines EBM".  But what is truth?  The eternal
philosopher's dilemma, or some objectivized outcome.  After all, EBM is
not "paint by numbers", it is Renoir (or Seargent, Turner, Picasso,
DaVinci, etc.).

Not to be too nihilistic, but I think of EBM as a tool to reduce
uncertainty.  To try to make a single definition of what is certain and
not, is doomed to failure.  This is why the three (or four) intersecting
circles model of EBM (clinical evidence, clinical predicament, patient
values and (+ / -) clinical experience) works best for me.  After all,
it is our patients who are going to be most affected by how we interpret
the evidence and our society that will pay for it.  Even the idolized
(almost) RCT is prone to problems from lack of generalizability or
manipulation of input or output variables to improper interpretation of
the results.

How about if we call EBM just another way of saying that we are
improving the abilities of physicians to be good critical thinkers? 
Does that help?  We must all be able to interpret the overload of
information that we get every day and put it into perspective.   Should
we use Recombinant Factor VIIa in non-hemopheliac patients with bleeding
(anywhere, but specifically in the head, or Iraq), or is the pro
thrombotic risk (heart attacks or strokes) too great?  How about
Silicone Breast Implants, which are now off the FDAs banned list?  These
were both in the news this week (and it is only Tuesday).  What should
we tell our patients?
Our interpretations of the evidence will inform
that discussion.   The more critically we approach our own
interpretation of the evidence, and know when to let someone else (EBM
leaders, drug companies, textbook publishers) inform our thoughts about
that, the better we can serve our patients.

Sorry for this rant, but I had not said anything for a while, so I guess
it is about time.

Best wishes,

Dan
>>> Matt Williams <[log in to unmask]> 11/21/2006 9:36 AM
>>>
Dear List,

I was wondering if anyone knows (& could tell me) of any work that
explores how clinicians weigh evidence.

I am well aware of the levels of evidence, but there are times when this
is too blunt (e..g studies are both 2b but disagree) and I am looking
fro any evidence of how clinicians weigh up the options and what they
consider important (e.g. study size, journal of publication, etc.)

Thanks a lot,

Matt
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/ 
+44 (0)7834 899570

************************************************************************
****
Dan Mayer, MD
Professor of Emergency Medicine
Albany Medical College
47 New Scotland Ave.
Albany, NY,  12208
Ph; 518-262-6180
FAX; 518-262-5029
E-mail; [log in to unmask]
************************************************************************
****
-----------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain
confidential information that is protected by law and is for the sole
use of the individuals or entities to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by
replying to this email and destroying all copies of the communication
and attachments. Further use, disclosure, copying, distribution of, or
reliance upon the contents of this email and attachments is strictly
prohibited. To contact Albany Medical Center, or for a copy of our
privacy practices, please visit us on the Internet at www.amc.edu.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager