What is evidence-based medicine?

A Review of Thyroid Hormone Administration during Adult Donor Care

Serum concentrations of thyroid hormones tetraiodothyronine and triiodothyronine commonly are low after head injury and brain death. Thyroid hormone replacement therapy, however, is a controversial part of donor management. This article reviews publications in which thyroid hormone administration was evaluated in human donors. A classification of the “quality” of study methods used in those publications is presented as part of the data review. No publications support the routine administration of thyroid hormone for all donors. “Rescue” replacement in support of cardiac inotropic function is supported by some studies, but the experimental design of those investigations is not optimal. Thyroid hormone replacement and its dosing should be decided by organ procurement organizations as part of treatment protocols.

Evidence-based guidelines in acromegaly: implications on the clinic

Acromegaly is a rare disease with many challenges in its management. In order to address these challenges, many clinical practice guidelines were recently published. They were based on the literature evidence, aiming at guiding primary care physicians, general endocrinologists and neuroendocrinologists. The majority of these guidelines were developed following the GRADE system that classifies the recommendations according to strength (weak or strong) and quality of the evidence that supports them. In this review, we discuss how the evidence-based guidelines are developed, how to interpret the different strengths of recommendations and discuss the clinical implications of the evidence-based guidelines in acromegaly, pointing its utility and limitations on the diagnosis, management of comorbidities and in the disease treatment.

The vexing problem of defining the meaning, role and measurement of values in treatment decision-making

Two international movements, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision-making (SDM) have grappled for some time with issues related to defining the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in their respective models of treatment decision-making. In this article, we identify and describe unresolved problems in the way that each movement addresses these issues. The starting point for this discussion is that at least two essential ingredients are needed for treatment decision-making: research information about treatment options and their potential benefits and risks; and the values/preferences of participants in the decision-making process. Both the EBM and SDM movements have encountered difficulties in defining the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in treatment decision-making. In the EBM model of practice, there is no clear and consistent definition of patient values/preferences and no guidance is provided on how to integrate these into an EBM model of practice. Methods advocated to measure patient values are also problematic. Within the SDM movement, patient values/preferences tend to be defined and measured in a restrictive and reductionist way as patient preferences for treatment options or attributes of options, while broader underlying value structures are ignored. In both models of practice, the meaning and expected role of physician values in decision-making are unclear. Values clarification exercises embedded in patient decision aids are suggested by SDM advocates to identify and communicate patient values/preferences for different treatment outcomes. Such exercises have the potential to impose a particular decision-making theory and/or process onto patients, which can change the way they think about and process information, potentially impeding them from making decisions that are consistent with their true values. The tasks of clarifying the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in treatment decision-making models such as EBM and SDM, and determining whose values ought to count are complex and difficult tasks that will not be resolved quickly. Additional conceptual thinking and research are needed to explore and clarify these issues. To date, the values component of these models remains elusive and underdeveloped.

A survey of Australian chiropractors' attitudes and beliefs about evidence-based practice and their use of research literature and clinical practice guidelines

Background

Research into chiropractors’ use of evidence in clinical practice appears limited to a single small qualitative study. The paucity of research in this area suggests that it is timely to undertake a more extensive study to build a more detailed understanding of the factors that influence chiropractors’ adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) principles. This study aimed to identify Australian chiropractors’ attitudes and beliefs towards EBP in clinical practice, and also examine their use of research literature and clinical practice guidelines.

Methods

We used an online questionnaire about attitudes, beliefs and behaviours towards the use of EBP in clinical practice that had been developed to survey physiotherapists and modified it to ensure that it was relevant to chiropractic practice. We endeavoured to survey all registered Australian chiropractors (n = 4378) via email invitation distributed by Australian chiropractic professional organisations and the Chiropractic Board of Australia. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine univariate associations between responses to items measuring attitudes and beliefs with items measuring: age; years since registration; attention to literature; and use of clinical practice guidelines.

Results

Questionnaires were returned by 584 respondents (response rate approximately 13%). The respondents’ perceptions of EBP were generally positive: most agreed that the application of EBP is necessary (77.9%), literature and research findings are useful (80.2%), EBP helps them make decisions about patient care (66.5%), and expressed an interest in learning or improving EBP skills (74.9%). Almost half of the respondents (45.1%) read between two to five articles a month. Close to half of the respondents (44.7%) used literature in the process of clinical decision making two to five times each month. About half of the respondents (52.4%) agreed that they used clinical practice guidelines, and around half (54.4%) agreed that they were able to incorporate patient preferences with clinical practice guidelines. The most common factor associated with increased research uptake was the perception that EBP helps make decisions about patient care.

Conclusions

Most Australian chiropractors hold positive attitudes towards EBP, thought EBP was useful, and were interested in improving EBP skills. However, despite the favourable inclination towards EBP, many Australian chiropractors did not use clinical practice guidelines. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the low response rate.

Evidence-based endocrinology: illustrating its principles in the management of patients with pituitary incidentalomas

Incidentally discovered pituitary lesions are commonly encountered in the current era of ever-increasing imaging. Individualizing a particular approach implies a thorough analysis of existing evidence and balancing it against different patient expectations. We will illustrate the application of principles of Evidence-Based Medicine to a case of a pituitary incidentaloma by formulating questions that are important to patient care and finding related evidence. Our objective is to reflect the opportunities and the challenges that an evidence-based clinical approach offers to clinicians and patients.

The evidence-based medicine model of clinical practice: scientific teaching or belief-based preaching?

RATIONALE

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is commonly advocated as a 'gold standard' of clinical practice. A prominent definition of EBM is: the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. Over time, various versions of a conceptual model or framework for implementing EBM (i.e. how to practice EBM) have been developed.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This paper (i) traces the evolution of the different versions of the conceptual model; (ii) tries to make explicit the underlying goals, assumptions and logic of the various versions by exploring the definitions and meaning of the components identified in each model, and the methods suggested for integrating these into clinical practice; and (iii) offers an analytic critique of the various model iterations.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken to identify, summarize, and compare the content of articles and books discussing EBM as a conceptual model to guide physicians in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that the EBM model of clinical practice, as it has evolved over time, is largely belief-based, because it is lacking in empirical evidence and theoretical support. The model is not well developed and articulated in terms of defining model components, justifying their inclusion and suggesting ways to integrate these in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

These findings are significant because without a model that clearly defines what constitutes an EBM approach to clinical practice we cannot (i) consistently teach clinicians how to do it and (ii) evaluate whether it is being done.

Are complementary medicine practitioners implementing evidence based practice?

BACKGROUND

Over the past few decades the health professions have witnessed increasing pressure to shift from a culture of delivering care based on tradition and intuition, to a situation where decisions are guided and justified by the best available evidence. While there are concerns that many complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners may be cautious about embracing such an approach, no studies to date have effectively tested this assumption.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the skills, attitude, training and use of evidence-based practice (EBP) amongst CAM practitioners.

DESIGN

Descriptive survey, using the evidence-based practice attitude and utilisation survey (EBASE).

SUBJECTS

Randomly selected nationwide sample of system-based, non-medically qualified CAM practitioners practicing in a clinical capacity within Australia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Practitioner skill, attitude, training and use of EBP.

RESULTS

Of the 351 questionnaires successfully dispatched, 126 were returned (36%). Most practitioners believed EBP was useful (92%) and necessary (73%) in CAM practice. While the majority of clinicians (>74%) reported participation in EBP activities, albeit infrequently, only a small to moderate proportion of decisions were based on evidence from clinical trials, with most practitioners relying on traditional knowledge, textbooks and clinical practice guidelines. Lack of available evidence, time, industry support and skills were perceived as barriers to EBP uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

While the small response rate limits the generalisability of these findings, the sample was considered representative of Australian CAM practitioners. What this study shows is that even though CAM practitioners may be supportive of EBP, education and training is needed to further improve clinician understanding and application of evidence-based practice.

The Return of Evidence-Based Neurology to the Journal: It’s All About Patient Care

Finding the current best evidence for care of the neurological patient and keeping up-to-date with new advances in clinical research is challenging. New medical knowledge is evolving quickly, but most studies lead nowhere or are too preliminary to act on and serve to bury or at least camouflage the few important studies. Evidence Based Clinical Practice (EBCP) is becoming an important and vital tool in this rapidly changing culture. As the quantity of neurological research publications continues to expand exponentially, evidence based principles provide a systematic and comprehensive strategy to approach this literature. There is a need for more availability of evidence based critically appraised information in the clinical neurosciences.

Evidence-based practice: A framework for clinical practice and research design

The evidence-based practice (EBP) framework emerged in the early 1970s as a means of improving clinical practice. This shift towards EBP allowed health professionals to move from a culture of delivering care based on tradition, intuition and authority, to a situation where decisions were guided and justified by the best available evidence. Despite the many advantages of EBP, many practitioners remain cautious about embracing the model. Part of this opposition is due to a misunderstanding of EBP, which this paper aims to address.

Systematic evaluation of the quality of randomized controlled trials in diabetes

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically ascertain the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified the 10 most recently published trials as of 31 October 2003 in each of six general medical, five diabetes, and five metabolism and nutrition journals and further enriched our sample with 10 additional RCTs from each of five journals that published the most eligible RCTs in a year. We explored the association between trial characteristics and reporting quality using univariate analyses and a preplanned multivariate regression model.

RESULTS

After excluding redundant reports of included trials and one trial that measured outcomes on the health system and not on patients, we included 199 RCTs: 119 assessed physiological and other laboratory outcomes, 42 assessed patient-important outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, quality of life), and 38 assessed surrogate outcomes (e.g., disease progression or regression, HbA(1c), cholesterol). Fifty-three percent were of low methodological quality, as were one-third (36-40%) of trials reporting patient-important or surrogate outcomes and two-thirds (64%) of laboratory investigations. Independent predictors of low quality were nonprofit funding source (odds ratio 3.1 [95% CI 1.5-6.2]), measure of physiological and laboratory outcomes (2.3 [1.2-4.4]), and cross-over design (2.3 [1.1-4.8]), all characteristics of laboratory clinical investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

There is ample room for improving the quality of diabetes trials. To enhance the practice of evidence-based diabetes care, trialists need to pay closer attention to the rigorous implementation and reporting of important methodological safeguards against bias in randomized trials.

Evidence-Based Endocrinology

Evidence-based medicine is the judicious, conscientious, and explicit use of the best available evidence from clinical research in making clinical decisions. This definition recognizes a hierarchy of evidence that arranges study designs by their susceptibility to bias. The top of the hierarchy includes n-of-1 trials, systematic reviews of randomized trials, and single randomized trials reporting patient-important outcomes. The bottom of the hierarchy includes physiologic studies and unsystematic clinical observations. The definition posits that evidence alone is never enough to guide clinical decisions. In addition to evidence from clinical research, decision making requires careful and expert assessment of the patient's circumstances and elicitation of the patient's values and preferences. The latter should drive decisions, particularly when the trade-offs (of benefit and risk) are close or unclear. The evidence-based medicine process involves: (i) asking an answerable question; (ii) acquiring the best available evidence; (iii) appraising the evidence to judge the strength of inference of its results; and (iv) applying the results to the individual patient. Evidence-based endocrinology is hindered by limited high-level evidence assessing patient-important outcomes, limited systematic summaries of this evidence, lack of time, and lack of systematic training of endocrinologists in evidence-based medicine. Current endocrine practice may require a redesign to enhance the role of endocrinologists as information brokers for colleagues and patients. In the last 10 years, evidence-based medicine has matured as a philosophy of clinical care and medical education. An appraisal of its role in endocrinology awaits the pervasion of its principles into all of endocrine practice.