Evidence-based medicine: An overview of key concepts

Ostomy Wound Management

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 68-85

  Carter, Marissa J ^a  

^a Strategic Solutions Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; POLITICS; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE REFORM; HUMANS; POLITICS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77952175831     PISSN: 08895899     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (107)

1. Krajewski SA, Hameed SM, Smink DS, Rogers SO Jr. Access to emergency operative care: a comparative study between the Canadian and American health care systems. Surgery. 2009;146(2):300-307.
2. Gilmer TP, Kronick RG. Hard times and health insurance: how many Americans will be uninsured by 2010? Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(4):573-577.
3. McWilliams JM. Health consequences of uninsurance among adults in the United States: recent evidence and implications. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):443-494.
4. Doty MM, Collins SR, Nicholson JL, Rustgi SD. Failure to protect: why the individual insurance market is not a viable option for most U.S. families: findings from the Common-wealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2007. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009;62:1-16.
5. Kaiser Family Foundation. Trends in health care costs and spending. September 2007. Available at: www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2009.
6. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research (RFA-OD-09-003). Available at: http://grants.nih. gov/grants/funding/challenge-award. Accessed August 19, 2009.
7. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2420-2425.
8. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WC. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-72.
9. Holmes D, Murray SJ, Perron A. Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power and fascism. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2006;4:180-186.
10. Rich EC. The policy debate over public investment in comparative effectiveness research. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):752-757.
11. van Rijswijk L. A stimulus to end tradition-based care. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009;55(3):4.
12. Ho PM, Peterson PN, Masoudi FA. Evaluating the evidence: is there a rigid hierarchy? Circulation. 2008;118(16):1675-1684.
13. Bellomo R, Bagshaw SM. Evidence-based medicine: classifying the evidence from clinical trials-the need to consider other dimensions. Crit Care. 2006;10(5):232.
14. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Glossary. March 2009. Available at: www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1116. Accessed November 16, 2009.
15. Bolton LL, Dotson P, Kerstein M. Controlled clinical trials versus case studies: Why wound care professionals need to know the difference. In: Krasner DL, Rodeheaver GT, Sibbald RG (eds). Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals. 4th Edition. Malvern, PA: HMP Communications;2007: 57-66.
16. Fleischli JG, Laughlin TJ, Fleischli JW. Equine pericardium collagen wound dressing in the treatment of the neuropathic diabetic foot wound: a pilot study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2009;99(4):301-305.
17. Boulton AJ. Pressure and the diabetic foot: clinical science and offloading techniques. Am J Surg. 2004;187(5A):17S-24S.
18. Bus SA, Valk GD, van Deursen RW, et al. The effectiveness of footwear and offloading interventions to prevent and heal foot ulcers and reduce plantar pressure in diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008;24(suppl 1):S162-S180.
19. Faglia E, Clerici G, Clerissi J, et al. Long-term prognosis of diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia: a population-based cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(5):822-827.
20. Rullan M, Cerdà L, Frontera G, Masmiquel L, Llobera J. Treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers with bemiparin: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Diabet Med. 2008;25(9):1090-1095.
21. Blume PA, Walters J, Payne W, Ayala J, Lantis J. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(4):631-636.
22. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2002.
23. Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM, Slutsky J, Grimshaw J, Deshpande AM. Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(6):493-498.
24. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of evidence. March 2009. Available at: www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed November 16, 2009.
25. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org; accessed August 27, 2009).
26. Hartling L, Opsina M, Liang Y, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4012.
27. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.
28. Berger VW. Is the Jadad score the proper evaluation of trials? J Rheumatology. 2006;33(8):1710-1711.
29. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huët C, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(5):448-452.
30. Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323(7308):334-336.
31. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN 50: A guideline developer's handbook. Available at: www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/. Accessed August 28, 2009.
32. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049-1051.
33. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
34. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations 1: Critical appraisal of existing approaches. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4(1):38.
35. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Grading or Gradeing? A symposium and debate on the grading of evidence in guidelines. Edinburgh, Scotland, May 6, 2009. Available at: www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/index. html#grade. Accessed August 15, 2009.
36. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407-415.
37. Chan KBY, Man-Son-Hing M, Molnar FJ, Laupacis A. How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2001;165(9):1197-1202.
38. Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4; Sample size calculations. Crit Care. 2002;6(4);335-341.
39. D'Agostino RB Sr, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues-the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med. 2003;22(2):169-186.
40. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310(6977):452-454.
41. Peskin BS, Sim D. Carter MJ. The failure of Vytorin and statins to improve cardiovascular health. Bad cholesterol or bad theory? J Am Phys Surg. 2008;13(3):82-87.
42. Altman, DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized controlled trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663-694
43. Bland JM, Altman DG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ. 1995;310(6973):170.
44. Sankoh AJ, Huque MF, Dubey SD. Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1997;16(22):2529-2542.
45. Feise RJ. Do multiple outcome measures require a p-value adjustment? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:8.
46. Peduzzi P, Henderson W, Hartigan P, Lavori P. Analysis of the randomized controlled trial. Epidemiol Rev. 2002;24(1):26-38.
47. Lachin JM. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(3):167-189.
48. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ. 2001;165(10):1339-1341.
49. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Unequal group sizes in randomised trials: guarding against guessing. Lancet. 2002;359(9310):966-970.
50. Egger M, Ebrahim S, Smith GD. Where now for meta-analysis? Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):1-5.
51. Viera AJ, Bangdiwala SI. Eliminating bias in randomized controlled trials: importance of allocation concealment and masking. Fam Med. 2007;39(2):132-137.
52. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals. A systematic sampling review. JAMA. 2007;297(11):1233-1240.
53. Carter MJ, Fife CE, Walker D, Thomson B. Estimating the applicability of wound-care randomized controlled trials to general wound care populations by estimating the percentage of individuals excluded from a typical wound care population in such trials. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2009;22(7):316-324.
54. Altman DG. Comparability of randomized groups. Statistician. 1985;34:125-136.
55. Scott NW, McPherson GC, Ramsay CR, Campbell MK. The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23(6):662-674.
56. Rosenberger WF, Sverdlov O. Handling covariates in the design of clinical trials. Statist Sci. 2008;23:404-419.
57. Kundt G. Comparative evaluation of balancing properties of stratified randomization procedures. Methods Inf Med. 2009;48(2):129-134.
58. Kang M, Ragan BG, Park JH. Issues in outcomes research: an overview of randomization techniques for clinical trials. J Athl Train. 2008;43(2):215-221.
59. Carter MJ, Warriner RA III. Evidence-based medicine in wound care: time for a new paradigm. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2009;22(1):12-16.
60. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med. 1982;72(2):233-240.
61. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(250:1887-1892.
62. Bagshaw SM, Bellomo R. The need to reform our assessment of evidence from clinical trials: a commentary. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2008;3:23.
63. Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, Taji Y, Yamagishi H. Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):668-676.
64. Feinstein AR. Epidemiologic analyses of causation: the unlearned scientific lessons of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(6):481-489.
65. van Rijswijk L. It's all about the "E." Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009;55(6):4.
66. Plafki C, Peters P, Almeling M, Welslau W, Busch R. Complications and side effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2000;71(2):119-124.
67. Smerz RW. Incidence of oxygen toxicity during the treatment of dysbarism. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2004;31(2):199-202.
68. Huang KC, Hsu WH, Peng KT, Huang TJ, Hsu RW. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in orthopedic conditions: an evaluation of safety. J Trauma. 2006;61(4):913-917.
69. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(3):206-209.
70. DeMaria AN. Clinical trials and clinical judgment. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(11):1120-1122.
71. Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian 'levels of evidence'. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2009;9:34.
72. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):167-171.
73. Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ. 2003;326(7392):756-758.
74. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995;311(7003):485.
75. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1896-1900.
76. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetziaff J, Altman DG. Preferred items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
77. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.
78. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(10):1-115.
79. Upshur RE. Are all evidence-based practices alike? Problems in the ranking of evidence. CMAJ. 2003;169(7):672-673.
80. Egger M, Smith GD, Philips AN. Meta-analysis. Principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997;315(7121):1533-1537.
81. Berman NG, Parker RA. Meta-analysis: neither quick nor easy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:10.
82. DeMaria AN. Meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(30:237-238.
83. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560.
84. Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):1148-1157.
85. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1559-1573.
86. Poole C, Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150(5):469-475.
87. Schierhout G, Roberts I. Fluid resuscitation with colloid or crystalloid solutions in critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised trials. BMJ. 1998;316(7136):961-964.
88. Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285(4):437-443.
89. 89. Bent S, Padula A, Avins AL. Brief communication: better ways to question patients about adverse medical events. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(4):257-261. (Pubitemid 46768208)
90. Ioannidis JP, Mulrow CD, Goodman SN. Adverse events: the more you search, the more you find. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(4):298-300.
91. Jick H. The discovery of drug-induced illness. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(9):481-485.
92. Vandenbroucke JP. Benefits and harms of drug treatments. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):2-3.
93. Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A. Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:32.
94. Dieppe P. From protocol to principles, from guidelines to toolboxes: aids to good management of osteoarthritis. Rheumatology. 2001;40(8):841-842.
95. Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, et al. Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA. 2001;286(12):1461-1467.
96. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Frequently asked questions. Available at: www.guideline.gov/resources/faq.aspx. Accessed November 21, 2009.
97. Institute of Medicine. In: Field MJ, Lohr KN, eds. Clinical Practice Guidelines. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1990:38.
98. 99. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, Mura G, Liberati A. Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet. 2000;355(9198):103-106. (Pubitemid 30068554)
99. Fretheim A, Williams JWJ, Oxman AD, Herrin J. The relation between methods and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for hypertension and hyperlipidemia. J Fam Pract. 2002;51(11):963-968.
100. Campbell F, Dickinson HO, Cook JV, Beyer FR, Eccles M, Mason JM. Methods underpinning national clinical guidelines for hypertension: describing the evidence shortfall. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:47.
101. Leng GC. NHS Evidence: better and faster access to information. Lancet. 2009;373(9674):1502-1504.
102. Hay MC, Weisner TS, Subramanian S, Duan N, Niedzinski EJ, Kravitz RL. Harnessing experience: exploring the gap between evidence-based medicine and clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(5):707-713.
103. Grol R. Implementation of evidence and guidelines in clinical practice: a new field of research? Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12(6):455-456.
104. Grol R. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ. 1997;315(7105):418-421.
105. Armstrong MH, Price P. Wet-to-dry dressings: fact and fiction. Wounds. 2004;16(2):56-62.
106. Wu SC, Jensen JL, Weber AK, Robinson DE, Armstrong DG. Use of offloading devices in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(11):2118-2119.
107. Fife CE, Carter MJ, Walker D. Why is it so hard to do the right thing in wound care? Wound Repair Regen. 2010;18(2):154-158.