Evidence-based medicine and values-based medicine : partners in clinical education as well as in clinical practice

The best clinical decisions are based on both evidence and values in what is known as the ‘twofeet principle’. Anecdotally, educationalists find teaching clinicians to become more evidence based is relatively simple in comparison to encouraging them to become more values based. One reason is likely to be the importance of values awareness. As valuesbased practice is premised on a mutual respect for the diversity of values, clinicians need to develop the skills to ascertain patient values and to get in touch with their own beliefs and preferences in order to understand those at play in any consultation. Only then can shared decision-making processes take place within a shared framework of values. In a research article published in BMC Medicine, AltamiranoBustamante and colleagues highlight difficulties that clinicians face in getting in touch with their own values. Despite finding that healthcare personnel’s core values were honesty and respect, autonomy was initially low ranked by participants. One significant aspect of this work is that this group has demonstrated that the extent to which clinicians value ‘autonomy’ and ‘openness to change’ can both be positively influenced by well designed education

Message to complementary and alternative medicine: evidence is a better friend than power

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is being embraced by an increasing number of practitioners and advocates of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). A significant constituency within CAM, however, appears to have substantive doubts about EBM and some are expressly hostile. DISCUSSION: Many of the arguments raised against EBM within the CAM community are based on a caricature radically at odds with established, accepted and published principles of EBM practice. Contrary to what has sometimes been argued, EBM is not cookbook medicine that ignores individual needs. Neither does EBM mandate that only proven therapies should be used. Before EBM, decisions on health care tended to be based on tradition, power and influence. Such modes usually act to the disadvantage of marginal groups. CONCLUSION: By placing CAM on an equal footing with conventional medicine - what matters for both is evidence of effectiveness - EBM provides an opportunity for CAM to find an appropriate and just place in health care

Purchasing online journal access for a hospital medical library: how to identify value in commercially available products

BACKGROUND: Medical practice today requires evaluating large amounts of information which should be available at all times. This information is found most easily in a digital form. Some information has already been evaluated for validity (evidence based medicine sources) and some is in unevaluated form (paper and online journals). In order to improve access to digital information, the School of Clinical Medicine and Research at the University of the West Indies and Queen Elizabeth Hospital decided to enhance the library by offering online full text medical articles and evidence based medicine sources. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the relative value of online journal commercial products available for a small hospital and medical school library. METHODS: Three reference standards were chosen to represent the ideal list of core periodicals for a broad range of medical care: 2 Brandon/Hill selected lists of journals for the small medical library (BH and BH core) and the academic medical library core journal collection chosen for the Florida State University College of Medicine Medical Library. Six commercially available collections were compared to the reference standards and to the current paper journal subscription list as regards to number of journals matched and cost per journal matched. Ease of use and presence of secondary sources were also considered. RESULTS: The cost per journal matched ranged from US $3194 to$ 81. Because of their low subscription prices, the Biomedical Reference Collection and Proquest products were the most cost beneficial. However, they provided low coverage of the ideal lists (12 – 17% and 21–32% respectively) and contained significant embargoes on current editions, were not user friendly and contained no secondary sources. The Ovid Brandon/Hill Plus Collection overcame these difficulties but had a much higher cost-benefit range while providing higher coverage of the ideal lists (14–47%). CONCLUSION: After considering costs, benefits, ease of use, embargoes, presence of secondary sources (ACP Journal Club, DARE), the Ovid Brandon/Hill Plus Collection was the best choice for our hospital considering our budget. However, the option to individually select our own journal list from Ovid and pay per journal has a certain appeal as well

What e-patients want from the doctor-patient relationship: content analysis of posts on discussion boards.

People with long-term conditions are encouraged to take control and ownership of managing their condition. Interactions between health care staff and patients become partnerships with sharing of expertise. This has changed the doctor-patient relationship and the division of roles and responsibilities that traditionally existed, but what each party expects from the other may not always be clear. Information that people with long-term conditions share on Internet discussion boards can provide useful insights into their expectations of health care staff. This paper reports on a small study about the expectations that people with a long-term condition (diabetes) have of their doctors using information gleaned from Internet discussion boards

All bleeding stops: how we can help...

Rossaint and colleagues provide the critical care community with a comprehensive review of evidence-based data in an updated European guideline on management of bleeding following major trauma. In addition to reevaluating and grading recommendations carried forward from their previous work, they present new recommendations in areas such as coagulation support and monitoring, tourniquet usage, calcium, and desmopressin. Many of the recommendations are appropriately broad enough to promote the use of clinical judgment in the application of the guidelines

"Me's me and you's you": Exploring patients' perspectives of single patient (n-of-1) trials in the UK

BACKGROUND: The n-of-1 trial offers a more methodologically sound approach to determining optimum treatment for an individual patient than "trials of therapy" routinely conducted in clinical practice. However, such methodology is rarely used in the UK. This pilot study explores the acceptability of n-of-1 trials to patients in the UK. METHODS: Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee were recruited to their own 12-week n-of-1 trial comparing either two knee supports or an NSAID with simple analgesic. Patients were interviewed at the start and completion of their trial to explore reasons for participation, understanding of the trial design and experiences of participation. Daily diaries were completed to inform future treatment. RESULTS: Nine patients participated (5 supports, 4 drugs). Patients were keen to participate, believing that the trial may lead to personal gains such as improved symptom control and quality of life. However, recruitment to the pharmacological comparison was more difficult since this could also entail risk. All patients were eager to complete the trial, even when difficulties were encountered. Completing the daily diary provided some patients with greater insight into their condition, which allowed them to improve their self-management. The n-of-1 trial design was viewed as a 'logical' design offering an efficient method of reaching a personalised treatment decision tailored to suit individual needs and preferences. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that patients perceive the n-of-1 trial as an acceptable approach to the individualisation of treatment. In addition, further benefits over and above any gained from the interventions can be derived from involvement in such a study

Quantitative evaluation of recall and precision of CAT Crawler, a search engine specialized on retrieval of Critically Appraised Topics

BACKGROUND: Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) are a useful tool that helps physicians to make clinical decisions as the healthcare moves towards the practice of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). The fast growing World Wide Web has provided a place for physicians to share their appraised topics online, but an increasing amount of time is needed to find a particular topic within such a rich repository. METHODS: A web-based application, namely the CAT Crawler, was developed by Singapore's Bioinformatics Institute to allow physicians to adequately access available appraised topics on the Internet. A meta-search engine, as the core component of the application, finds relevant topics following keyword input. The primary objective of the work presented here is to evaluate the quantity and quality of search results obtained from the meta-search engine of the CAT Crawler by comparing them with those obtained from two individual CAT search engines. From the CAT libraries at these two sites, all possible keywords were extracted using a keyword extractor. Of those common to both libraries, ten were randomly chosen for evaluation. All ten were submitted to the two search engines individually, and through the meta-search engine of the CAT Crawler. Search results were evaluated for relevance both by medical amateurs and professionals, and the respective recall and precision were calculated. RESULTS: While achieving an identical recall, the meta-search engine showed a precision of 77.26% (±14.45) compared to the individual search engines' 52.65% (±12.0) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the validity of the CAT Crawler meta-search engine approach. The improved precision due to inherent filters underlines the practical usefulness of this tool for clinicians

Pitfalls of using the risk ratio in meta‐analysis

For meta-analysis of studies that report outcomes as binomial proportions, the most popular measure of effect is the odds ratio (OR), usually analyzed as log(OR). Many meta-analyses use the risk ratio (RR) and its logarithm, because of its simpler interpretation. Although log(OR) and log(RR) are both unbounded, use of log(RR) must ensure that estimates are compatible with study-level event rates in the interval (0, 1). These complications pose a particular challenge for random-effects models, both in applications and in generating data for simulations. As background we review the conventional random-effects model and then binomial generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) with the logit link function, which do not have these complications. We then focus on log-binomial models and explore implications of using them; theoretical calculations and simulation show evidence of biases. The main competitors to the binomial GLMMs use the beta-binomial (BB) distribution, either in BB regression or by maximizing a BB likelihood; a simulation produces mixed results. Two examples and an examination of Cochrane meta-analyses that used RR suggest bias in the results from the conventional inverse-variance-weighted approach. Finally, we comment on other measures of effect that have range restrictions, including risk difference, and outline further research