Talk:Evidence-based medicine/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Supten Sarbadhikari No edit summary |
imported>Supten Sarbadhikari |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
==Criticisms that may be incorporated into the Section== | ==Criticisms that may be incorporated into the Section== | ||
I think more needs to be added | I think more needs to be added about the sources of much so-called EBM, from sources interested in minimizing expenses of government health plans, like the Cochrane group, or through medical auditors interested primarily in maximizing profits of private HMOs, like Milliman & Robertson. | ||
about the sources of much so-called EBM, from sources interested in | There also needs to be a fair admission of how little of accepted | ||
minimizing expenses of government health plans, like the Cochrane group, or | |||
through medical auditors interested primarily in maximizing profits of | |||
private HMOs, like Milliman & Robertson. | |||
medical practice has actually been validated by 'gold-standard' studies. | medical practice has actually been validated by 'gold-standard' studies. | ||
When should a procedure be denied based on lack of EBM support? | When should a procedure be denied based on lack of EBM support? | ||
And, to what extent are surrogate measures acceptable when, say, | |||
survival data is unavailable? For instance in Radiation Oncology (my own specialty) if you know that higher radiation doses kill more cancer cells, and high doses are usually limited by doses to surrounding tissues, and if you can show that some new technique gives less dose to surrounding tissues this allowing higher doses to cancers, is it irrational to take that as evidence that the new technique | |||
survival data is unavailable? | |||
For instance in Radiation Oncology (my own specialty) if you know that | |||
higher radiation doses kill more cancer cells, and high doses are usually | |||
limited by doses to surrounding tissues, and if you can show that some new | |||
technique gives less dose to surrounding tissues this allowing higher doses | |||
to cancers, is it irrational to take that as evidence that the new technique | |||
is superior? Must an HMO insist on a prospective randomized double-blind | is superior? Must an HMO insist on a prospective randomized double-blind | ||
study using 20 year survival as an endpoint before allowing use of the new | study using 20 year survival as an endpoint before allowing use of the new technique? | ||
technique? | The other issue is the extent to which 'cost' should be involved in EBM | ||
studies, and if it IS allowed, what should be the conversion factor between dollars and years of life, or dollars and years of pain-free life. Should we EVER do a coronary bypass operation, given that the same number of dollars could save thousands of lives if spent on malaria prevention instead? But, WOULD the dollars saved be spent on malaria prevention, or would it go to executive perks and stockholder dividends? One doctor in California recently received almost a billion dollars selling his share of an HMO. Those were dollars not spent on medical care, often justified by calling some procedure "not medically necessary", or "investigational"! | |||
And, what weight should be given to the EBM "guidelines"? Should they be | |||
studies, and if it IS allowed, what should be the conversion factor between | used to overrule the decision of the primary doctor on the case? If so, who takes responsibility for adverse results? The clerk who countermanded a doctor's order based on an M&R cookbook? [[User:Harvey Frey|Harvey Frey]] | ||
dollars and years of life, or dollars and years of pain-free life. Should we | |||
EVER do a coronary bypass operation, given that the same number of dollars | |||
could save thousands of lives if spent on malaria prevention instead? But, | |||
WOULD the dollars saved be spent on malaria prevention, or would it go to | |||
executive perks and stockholder dividends? One doctor in California recently | |||
received almost a billion dollars selling his share of an HMO. Those were | |||
dollars not spent on medical care, often justified by calling some procedure | |||
"not medically necessary", or "investigational"! | |||
used to overrule the decision of the primary doctor on the case? If so, who | |||
takes responsibility for adverse results? The clerk who countermanded a | |||
doctor's order based on an M&R cookbook? [[User:Harvey Frey|Harvey Frey]] | |||
:I think these are all legitimate issues. What we have so far is a pretty | :I think these are all legitimate issues. What we have so far is a pretty | ||
| Line 96: | Line 72: | ||
::Here's another example: http://www.careguidelines.com/ | ::Here's another example: http://www.careguidelines.com/ | ||
An entirely PROPRIETARY set of "EBM Guidelines" from Milliman, | |||
originally a hospital accounting firm, based on no known public peer review, widely sold to managed care organizations in the US, for the express purpose of controlling cost. | originally a hospital accounting firm, based on no known public peer review, widely sold to managed care organizations in the US, for the express purpose of controlling cost. | ||
And, of course they come with disclaimers, to avoid liability if anyone is injured by one of their clients using them. I do remember a case in California a few years ago when they figured prominently when a hospital prematurely discharged a woman post-delivery, based on these guidelines. Unfortunately, it wasn't an reported appellate case, so I'm having trouble finding it now. [[User:Harvey Frey|Harvey Frey]] | |||
:::Interesting. I cannot find their guidelines to assess their methods, but from your description, it sounds like they hijacked the label | :::Interesting. I cannot find their guidelines to assess their methods, but from your description, it sounds like they hijacked the label | ||
evidence-based. [[User:Robert Badgett|Robert Badgett]] | evidence-based. [[User:Robert Badgett|Robert Badgett]] | ||
Revision as of 01:01, 14 November 2007
I will be gad to help author here, and would like to go over a plan for the article. I think that, as this article covers a a special sort of medical field that we should discuss "audience". Please, fellow editors, argue with any of these points if they differ from your understanding. Evidence based medicine is certainly all about clinical care of patients- but, unlike an article on dermatology, say, it really is about a way of thinking about medicine, an approach. Reading what is written so far- it is really meaty and presents that approach, but, in my mind suffers from 2 faults, one is that there is too much technical language without explanation, and (2) the history of medicine (in a way) has to be presented so that the naive reader understands that actually, "regualar medicine" is not evidenced based. I tyhink also, that including some real examples of changes in clinical practice that are based on evidence based medicine, may be helpful. I am going to add some of this and am open to discussion, especially from Supten. Nancy Sculerati 09:35, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
References-with notes
O'Malley P. Order no harm: evidence-based methods to reduce prescribing errors for the clinical nurse specialist. [Review] [17 refs] [Journal Article. Review] Clinical Nurse Specialist. 21(2):68-70, 2007 Mar-Apr. UI: 17308440 Classed under evidenced based medicine by Ovid (Medline) , his article reviews actual sources of medication errors.
Doumit G. Gattellari M. Grimshaw J. O'Brien MA. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.[update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000125; PMID: 10796491]. [Review] [54 refs] [Journal Article. Review] Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (1):CD000125, 2007. UI: 17253445
Lorenz LB. Wild RA. Polycystic ovarian syndrome: an evidence-based approach to evaluation and management of diabetes and cardiovascular risks for today's clinician. [Review] [60 refs] [Journal Article. Review] Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology. 50(1):226-43, 2007 Mar. UI: 17304038
Jordan A. McDonagh JE. Transition: getting it right for young people. [Review] [29 refs] [Journal Article. Review] Clinical Medicine. 6(5):497-500, 2006 Sep-Oct. UI: 17080900
Thanigaraj S. Wollmuth JR. Zajarias A. Chemmalakuzhy J. Lasala JM. From randomized trials to routine clinical practice: an evidence-based approach for the use of drug-eluting stents. [Review] [48 refs] [Journal Article. Review] Coronary Artery Disease. 17(8):673-9, 2006 Dec. UI: 17119375
Stanley K. Design of randomized controlled trials. [Review] [9 refs] [Journal Article. Review] Circulation. 115(9):1164-9, 2007 Mar 6. UI: 17339574
Sectioning
Are there perhaps more sections than are useful here? CZ:Article Mechanics recommends against many relatively short sections in favor of relatively few, longer sections. But I don't think we have any very hard-and-fast rules about this.
Glad to see you here, Dr. Badgett! --Larry Sanger 22:01, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks - Robert Badgett 22:37, 31 October 2007 (CDT)
'Main' template not working
I added a new call to the main template, and now all three calls are not displaying correctly. - Robert Badgett 22:37, 31 October 2007 (CDT)
Misuses of EBM
The article ignores the misuses of EBM in the real world. Very few of the methods actually used in medicine have ever been validated by independent prospective randomized double-blind studies, or are likely to be. The main use of EBM is by HMOs and other prepaid managed care organizations, as an excuse to refuse to pay for expensive studies or treatments, while happily paying for inexpensive, untested, unproven treatments, such as herbal and other "alternative" medicines. I do not think this misuse of EBM should be ignored in this otherwise wholly laudatory article. Harvey Frey 17:20, 12 November 2007 (CST)
- Hi!
- The use of the "there is no evidence that" is becoming a little too frequent in clinical medicine. I suggest these two articles for inclusion; unfortunately I cannot access them (full text) right now.
- J Med Ethics 2004;30:141-145 Evidence based medicine and justice: a framework for looking at the impact of EBM upon vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. W A Rogers
- S I Saarni and H A Gylling Evidence based medicine guidelines: a solution to rationing or politics disguised as science?
- J. Med. Ethics, Apr 2004; 30: 171 - 175.
- May I summarize the two abstracts in the Criticisms section?
- Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 23:34, 12 November 2007 (CST)
Problem with the references
Somewhere around the 50th reference, there is a bug. Can someone fix this? Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 23:47, 12 November 2007 (CST)
- Great! Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 13:50, 13 November 2007 (CST)
Criticisms that may be incorporated into the Section
I think more needs to be added about the sources of much so-called EBM, from sources interested in minimizing expenses of government health plans, like the Cochrane group, or through medical auditors interested primarily in maximizing profits of private HMOs, like Milliman & Robertson. There also needs to be a fair admission of how little of accepted medical practice has actually been validated by 'gold-standard' studies. When should a procedure be denied based on lack of EBM support? And, to what extent are surrogate measures acceptable when, say, survival data is unavailable? For instance in Radiation Oncology (my own specialty) if you know that higher radiation doses kill more cancer cells, and high doses are usually limited by doses to surrounding tissues, and if you can show that some new technique gives less dose to surrounding tissues this allowing higher doses to cancers, is it irrational to take that as evidence that the new technique is superior? Must an HMO insist on a prospective randomized double-blind study using 20 year survival as an endpoint before allowing use of the new technique? The other issue is the extent to which 'cost' should be involved in EBM studies, and if it IS allowed, what should be the conversion factor between dollars and years of life, or dollars and years of pain-free life. Should we EVER do a coronary bypass operation, given that the same number of dollars could save thousands of lives if spent on malaria prevention instead? But, WOULD the dollars saved be spent on malaria prevention, or would it go to executive perks and stockholder dividends? One doctor in California recently received almost a billion dollars selling his share of an HMO. Those were dollars not spent on medical care, often justified by calling some procedure "not medically necessary", or "investigational"! And, what weight should be given to the EBM "guidelines"? Should they be used to overrule the decision of the primary doctor on the case? If so, who takes responsibility for adverse results? The clerk who countermanded a doctor's order based on an M&R cookbook? Harvey Frey
- I think these are all legitimate issues. What we have so far is a pretty
mainstream article, your stuff would help. Much of this could be added to the 'criticisms' section, which is currently sparse. Some of what you suggest might be better on the clinical guidelines page. Robert Badgett
- Here's another example: http://www.careguidelines.com/
An entirely PROPRIETARY set of "EBM Guidelines" from Milliman, originally a hospital accounting firm, based on no known public peer review, widely sold to managed care organizations in the US, for the express purpose of controlling cost. And, of course they come with disclaimers, to avoid liability if anyone is injured by one of their clients using them. I do remember a case in California a few years ago when they figured prominently when a hospital prematurely discharged a woman post-delivery, based on these guidelines. Unfortunately, it wasn't an reported appellate case, so I'm having trouble finding it now. Harvey Frey
- Interesting. I cannot find their guidelines to assess their methods, but from your description, it sounds like they hijacked the label
evidence-based. Robert Badgett