“This house believes that in the absence of research evidence an intervention should not be used”
This was the motion of a debate which took place at the end of the recent PhysioUK2015 Conference in Liverpool.
A few people spoke for it and few against it. And the against group won.
Here is a blog post describing the arguments:https://rogerkerry.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/this-house-believes-that-in-the-absence-of-research-evidence-an-intervention-should-not-be-used/
Here is my response in another forum to the thread:
"I think there are fundamental points about EBM which I think the the whole debate title missed.
First, there is ALWAYS evidence. Even the expert opinion or evidence from a single patient is evidence. The important point is how much confidence or certainty can you place on the "best available evidence". So if there is no RCT's or risk of bias in RCT's , you just move down the ladder, but your confidence and hence your recommendations to your patient change accordingly. So it is clearly not an yes or no answer. There is the GRADE approach, AHA has its own and USPSTF has its grading system which details this approach.
Second evidence (research) is not enough. You have to consider the preferences of the patient to assign values. When the confidence in your treatment is uncertain or weak, patient values and preferences/clinical expertise becomes more important in decision making."
What are you thoughts? I agree this is not medicine, but this what other professions think about EBP.
|