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  April 2012

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH April 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Distorting the Evidence & its impact on EBM/EBP

From:

Patricia Anderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Patricia Anderson <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:02:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (228 lines)

This was a prominent theme at this week's TEDMED conference, with
speakers focused less on  retractions and more on positive-findings
bias in the published peer reviewed literature, with examples
presented illustrating how that bias endangers the public. EBM/EBHC
can only be as strong as the data it analyses. We make intense efforts
to show that that we, as systematic review researchers, try to be
comprehensive in our searches and avoid bias in our analysis, but if
the research data isn't published because of bias at the level of the
publishers and editors of the journals, well, how much is our work
worth?

There was a parallel presentation on the topic that the scientific
method is broken in our emerging big data environment. Briefly, the
question was whether the strategy of asking questions first and
seeking data makes sense when data is so easy to come by. The thought
is that we need to turn the scientific method on its head and come up
with new strategies for analyzing data, visualizing data, and
generating questions that allow us to look at big data in useful ways.

Separately but also recently, I attended a presentation by a curator
and manager at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on the
topic of their Deadly Medicine exhibit. The focus of the exhibit is an
examination of how the 3rd Reich successfully persuaded the healthcare
and other helping professions to switch from "First, do no harm" to
genocide. The elements that most struck me were these two:
 - 1) a strong focus, possibly the first intentional systematic
government funded focus, on what would now be called evidence-based
practices;
 - 2) discovering sympathetic researchers in closely related but
slightly peripheral fields, and funding them like crazy to generate
research in the targeted question areas.

I know, I KNOW. I've heard the Soviet war prisoner story. I know that
Archie Cochrane first came up with the whole idea of systematic
reviews with a view towards freeing frontline clinicians from spending
so much time digging through research and allowing them to focus on
compassionate patient care. I worry how well that is being understood
by the profession at large, especially when I hear things like "no
treatment should ever be provided for a patient without a strong
systematic review in support of it;" "insurance companies should only
fund evidence based practices;" or "government should not waste its
money funding research into areas where  there is not strong
evidence." Yes, I have really heard every single one of these, from
highly educated, informed, influential professional leaders.

My original mentor in evidence based methodologies and practice is
Amid Ismail, who has won many awards for his influence in bringing
evidence based methodologies and clinical practices to the profession
of dentistry. He repeatedly expressed concern over several years that
people were missing one particularly essential aspect of implementing
EBHC: the best AVAILABLE evidence needs to be combined with expert
CLINICAL JUDGMENT. He emphasized this, and often explained that in
cases of a rare condition or a complicated presentation, there may be
no systematic review and the best available evidence may very well be
a single case report or expert opinion. In that case, you use the best
available evidence, whatever that is (sometimes it means a consult)
and integrated that with your judgment as a clinician as that
particular patient, their needs and preferences. EBHC was never never
intended to supplant or interfere with the doctor-patient relationship
and the clinical decisionmaking process that grows out of that
relationship.

I have been planning a blogpost on this topic, but perhaps it would be
just as well to post this message, if Jordan would give me permission
to post his original question? Thank you for bringing this up here. I
have been agonizing over this topic for a few months now, and I see it
getting to be a bigger question. It is certainly not going away. I
suspect that EBHC in its current form is either going to fade away
over the next twenty years, or will have to drastically transform
itself in the eyes of the professions and the public.

 - Patricia Anderson, [log in to unmask]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Jordan Panayotov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> May I add an important detail that is missing in the discussion
> about†EBP/EBM/EIP/EIM/EIDM.
>
> How reliable is the Evidence? What happens with the Evidence when, for
> example, 193 (one hundred ninety three) papers are RETRACTED?
>
> See Retraction Watch here
>
> http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/193-papers-could-be-retracted-journal-consortium-issues-ultimatum-in-fujii-case/
>
> Countless number of practitioners and decision-makers around the world try
> to adhere to Evidence-Based Practice which is based on evidence, which is
> based on systematic reviews, which are based on peer reviewed publications
> (like Fujiiís papers).
>
> According to Microsoft Academic Search
>
> http://65.54.113.26/Author/54367026/yoshitaka-fujii Fujii has been cited
> 5,735 times! Y. Fujii has collaborated with 512 co-authors from 1991 to
> 2011; Cited by 18,519 authors!
>
> What is the VALUE of such Evidence? What is the impact of such "Evidence" on
> EBP/EBM?
>
> All the best,
>
> Jordan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Djulbegovic, Benjamin
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Definitions of EBM/EBP
>
>
>
> Indeed, SELECTIVE use of evidence is greater threat to the practice of
> medicine than not consulting evidence resources at all!
>
> bd
>
>
>
> From: Evidence based health (EBH)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ash Paul
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Definitions of EBM/EBP
>
>
>
> Dear Rakesh,
>
>
>
> Your comment 'Is it possible that most practitioners would love to
> understand EIP as (B) practice informed on the cumulation/totality of
> research but unfortunately often end up with (A) practice informed by any
> piece (or pieces) of evidence' is not only very interesting but also very
> relevant, especially for healthcare commissioners.
>
>
>
> You might find this 2009 article published in the 'Journal of Health
> Sceinces Education' interesting:
>
> Educational strategies to reduce diagnostic error: can you teach the stuff?
>
> http://www.isabelhealthcare.com/pdf/EducationStrategiesToReduceDiagnosticError.pdf
>
>
>
> The author Mark Graber†refers to (here we go again, I'm wading into Biblical
> controversy once more!)†The 10 Commandments To Reduce Cognitive Errors
>
> 1. Thou shalt reflect on how you think and decide.
>
> 2. Thou shalt not rely on your memory when making critical decisions.
>
> 3. Thou shalt make your working environment information-friendly by using
> the latest wireless technology such as the Tablet PC and PDA.
>
> 4. Thou shalt consider other possibilities even though you are sure of your
> first diagnosis.
>
> 5. Thou shalt know Bayesian probability and the epidemiology of the diseases
> in your differential diagnosis.
>
> 6. Thou shalt mentally rehearse common and serious conditions that you
> expect to see in your specialty.
>
> 7. Thou shalt ask yourself if you are the right person to make the final
> decision or a specialist after considering the patientís values and wishes.
>
> 8. Thou shalt take time to decide and not be pressured by anyone.
>
> 9. Thou shalt create accountability procedures and follow up for decisions
> made.
>
> 10. Thou shalt record in a relational data base software your patientís
> problems and decisions for review and improvement.
>
>
>
> Leo Leonidas MD (Pediatrics, Maine)
>
> Ref:
>
> Trowbridge, R. (2008). Twelve tips for teaching avoidance of diagnostic
> errors. Medical Teacher, 30,
>
> 496Ė500.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ash
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Rakesh Biswas <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2012, 15:34
> Subject: Re: Definitions of EBM/EBP
>
>
>
> Thanks Neil for this great discussion.
>
> Is it possible that most practitioners would love to understand EIP as (B)
> practice informed on the cumulation/totality of research but unfortunately
> often end up with (A) practice informed by any piece (or pieces) of
> evidence.
>
> This is again possibly due to the fact that cumulation/totality of research
> depends on 'as far as such cumulation exists' and is accessible to the
> practitioner?
>
> regards, rakesh



-- 
Patricia Anderson, [log in to unmask]
Emerging Technologies Librarian
University of Michigan
http://www.lib.umich.edu/users/pfa

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

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