Evidence based medicine overviews, bulletins, guidelines, and the new consensus

Competent clinical practice is necessarily based on good scientific evidence of eVectiveness. Few would argue with this justification of “evidence based medicine” (EBM) and the best, most appropriate clinical interventions and therapies have probably always been based on the most relevant available evidence. So, we may ask, why is EBM a new idea. The “syndrome” has a multiple epidemiology. Explanations lie with the profusion of evidence, rate of accrual of new evidence (including contradictory evidence), changes in means of storing, retrieving, and disseminating evidence, and the increasing pressure on healthcare professionals from both government and the public to ensure that clinical practice is based on evidence. The present paper reviews this rapidly expanding “industry” of secondary research, which summarises the findings of primary studies and trials and packages the synopses for easy assimilation by busy practitioners and managers, and discusses some of its advantages, disadvantages, and possible consequences.

[1]  F. Song,et al.  Cholesterol lowering and mortality: the importance of considering initial level of risk. , 1993, BMJ.

[2]  R. West.  Assessment of evidence versus consensus or prejudice. , 1992, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[3]  B. Rifkind,et al.  The value of lowering cholesterol after myocardial infarction. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  R. Simes.  Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. , 1986, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. , 1992, BMJ.

[6]  L Goldman,et al.  Anticoagulants and myocardial infarction. The problems of pooling, drowning, and floating. , 1979, Annals of internal medicine.

[7]  S. Woolf.  Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II. Methods of developing guidelines. , 1992, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  U. Ravnskov,et al.  Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome. , 1992, BMJ.

[9]  R. Peto,et al.  Clinical trial methodology , 1978, Nature.

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

[11]  K. Matthews,et al.  Lowering cholesterol concentrations and mortality: a quantitative review of primary prevention trials. , 1990, BMJ.

[12]  M. Parmar,et al.  Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? , 1993, The Lancet.

[13]  W. Fletcher.  RICE AND BERI-BERI:: PRELIMINARY REPORT ON AN EXPERIMENT CONDUCTED AT THE KUALA LUMPUR LUNATIC ASYLUM , 1907 .

[14]  George Davey Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures , 1997, BMJ.

[15]  R. West.  A Look at the Statistical Overview (or Meta-Analysis) , 1993, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

[16]  I. M. Richardson,et al.  Respiratory illness and antibiotic use in general practice. , 1971, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[17]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  J. Boissel,et al.  Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis. , 1992, BMJ.

[19]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Guidelines for reading literature reviews. , 1988, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[20]  J. Nunnelee.  Low-molecular-weight heparin. , 1997, Journal of vascular nursing : official publication of the Society for Peripheral Vascular Nursing.

[21]  R. Carr-Hill.  Welcome? To the brave new world of evidence based medicine. , 1995, Social science & medicine.

[22]  C. Begg,et al.  Publication bias : a problem in interpreting medical data , 1988 .

[23]  D. Julian.  Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research , 1998, BMJ.

[24]  J. Bailar.  The promise and problems of meta-analysis. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. , 1992, Epidemiologic reviews.

[26]  R. Simes,et al.  Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects , 1997, BMJ.

[27]  J. Vandenbroucke,et al.  Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis , 1992, The Lancet.

[28]  R. West,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of antibiotics in patients with cough and purulent sputum. , 1976, British medical journal.

[29]  F. Rosendaal.  The emergence of a new species: the professional meta-analyst. , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[30]  M. Gardner,et al.  Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. , 1986, British medical journal.

[31]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Publication bias and clinical trials. , 1987, Controlled clinical trials.