History of the concept of ‘levels of evidence’ and their current status in relation to primary prevention through lifestyle interventions

Abstract Primary prevention is a major option to reduce the burden of chronic disease in populations. Because lifestyle interventions have proved to be effective, lifestyle recommendations including nutritional advice are made abundantly. However, both their credibility and their effectiveness are often considered not to be high. Therefore, scientific evidence should form the basis of recommendations and, as in clinical medicine, a rational approach should be followed for the evaluation of evidence. In this paper, the development and current concepts of ‘levels of evidence’ as they are applied in clinical medicine are outlined and their impact on evidence-based recommendations is discussed. Next, the question is raised as to how far the existing schemes are applicable to the evaluation of issues pertaining to primary prevention through lifestyle changes. Current schemes were developed mainly for clinical research questions and therefore place major emphasis on randomised controlled trials as the main and most convincing evidence in the evaluation process. These types of study are rarely available for lifestyle-related factors and might even not be feasible to obtain. Arguments are advanced to support the notion that a modification of currently existing ‘levels of evidence’ as developed for clinical research questions might be necessary. Thereby, one might be able to accommodate the specific aspects of evidence-related issues of recommendations for primary prevention through lifestyle changes, like dietary changes.

[1]  J. Mason,et al.  North of England evidence based guideline development project: guideline on the use of aspirin as secondary prophylaxis for vascular disease in primary care , 1998 .

[2]  A. B. Hill The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? , 1965, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[3]  North of England evidence based guideline development project: guideline on the use of aspirin as secondary prophylaxis for vascular disease in primary care , 1998 .

[4]  N. Black Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care , 1996, BMJ.

[5]  A. Hartz,et al.  A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Julie M. Miller The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) , 2002 .

[7]  K. Lohr,et al.  Assessing "best evidence": issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. , 1999, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[8]  D C Hadorn,et al.  Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  Cindy Farquhar,et al.  3 The Cochrane Library , 1996 .

[10]  A. Katz Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Annual checkup revisited. , 1996, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[11]  J. Concato,et al.  Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind? , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.