 |
 |
I am an editor of a standard postgraduate medical textbook and as such am concerned that all contributions should be evidence-based. I am aware of different ways in which textbooks try to acheive this, but am interested in knowing about all possible models for this. For example, Clinical Evidence does a great job and provides a handbook/reference guide of topics of wide general interest in healthcare. However its question/answer presentation and limitation to interventions is not appropriate to the more discursive format of most textbooks. These often have to cover aspects of conditions or disease states such as aetiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, natural history, clinical management etc etc, in an engaging and readable format. In many of these areas the evidence may be thin, but statements about the current state of knowledge need to be made. Much of the literature in this area is likely to be buried within the pages of textbooks and therefore not readily accessible by electornic means, which is why I thought it would be a good topic to air to this group. My specific questions are: 1. What methods do you know for ensuring that textbooks provide a summary of the best available current evidence in the topic areas which they cover? 2. What are the strengths and limitations of these methods? Best wishes, Rosalind L Smyth Brough Professor of Paediatric Medicine University of Liverpool Institute of Child Health Alder Hey Children's Hospital LIVERPOOL L12 2AP United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 151-252-5693 Fax:+44 (0) 151- 252-5456 e-mail: [log in to unmask]