>I would like to know which medical journals have started reporting the
level of evidence along with the abstracts of the articles that they
publish.
...
>Dr. Tashfeen Ahmad, FCPS, PhD
===========================================================
Tashfeen
I would hope that no journals attach a level of evidence to the papers
that they publish. A level of evidence is a tool for delegating to someone
else the critical appraisal of the usefulness of a piece of evidence.
However, the level of evidence can be very misleading without knowing how
the evidence was critically appraised, the context (relation of the piece
of evidence to other relevant scientific knowledge), and the use to which
the evidence will be put.
Journals cannot always put the evidence into context (although sometimes
this is done by the authors or an accompanying editorial).
Journals should not assume how the piece of evidence is going to be used.
Peer-review journals do (in theory at least) have articles critically
appraised before publication, but they should not be allowed to give the
impression (as assigning a level of evidence would) that readers do not
need to appraise the article themselves. In plain language: never trust a
journal to do your baloney detection for you.
The term "level of evidence" promises more than it can deliver, and is a
temptation, irresistable to many, not to think. The term pollutes the
literature because it is wonderful marketing; and it is wonderful
marketing because it is prone to biased and erroneous interpretation.
You might want to search the archives of the Evidence-Based-Health list
for previous discussions on levels of evidence. There has been some
interesting debate on the issue.
Michael
Clinical Knowledge Author, Guideline Developer and Informatician
Clinical Knowledge Summaries Service www.cks.library.nhs.uk
|