Ways of using evidence-based medicine in general practice

General practitioners wanting to practise evidence-based medicine (EBM) are constrained by time factors and the great diversity of clinical problems they deal with. They need experience in knowing what questions to ask, in locating and evaluating the evidence, and in applying it. Conventional searching for the best evidence can be achieved in daily general practice. Sometimes the search can be performed during the consultation, but more often it can be done later and the patient can return for the result. Case-based journal clubs provide a supportive environment for GPs to work together to find the best evidence at regular meetings. An evidence-based literature search service is being piloted to enhance decision-making for individual patients. A central facility provides the search and interprets the evidence in relation to individual cases. A request form and a results format make the service akin to pathology testing or imaging. Using EBM in general practice appears feasible. Major difficulties still exist before it can be practised by all GPs, but it has the potential to change the way doctors update their knowledge.

An evidence-based medicine fellowship in a children's teaching hospital

This paper reports the introduction of an evidence-based medicine fellowship in a children’s teaching hospital. The results are presented of a self-reported ‘evidence-based medicine’ questionnaire, the clinical questions requested through the information retrieval service are outlined and the results of an information retrieval service user questionnaire are reported. It was confirmed that clinicians have frequent clinical questions that mostly remain unanswered. The responses to four questions with ‘good quality’ evidence-based answers were reviewed and suggest that at least one-quarter of doctors were not aware of the current best available evidence. There was a high level of satisfaction with the information retrieval service; 19% of users indicated that the information changed their clinical practice and 73% indicated that the information confirmed their clinical practice. The introduction of an evidence-based medicine fellowship is one method of disseminating the practice of evidence-based medicine in a tertiary children’s hospital.

Whither our Art? Clinical Wisdom & Evidence-based Medicine

The relationship between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical judgement is the subject of conceptual and practical dispute. For example, EBM and clinical guidelines are seen to increasingly dominate medical decision-making at the expense of other, human elements, and to threaten the art of medicine. Clinical wisdom always remains open to question. We want to know why particular beliefs are held, and the epistemological status of claims based in wisdom or experience. The paper critically appraises a number of claims and distinctions, and attempts to clarify the connections between EBM, clinical experience and judgement, and the objective and evaluative categories of medicine. I conclude that to demystify clinical wisdom is not to devalue it. EBM ought not be conceived as needing to be limited or balanced by clinical wisdom, since if its language is translatable into terms comprehensible and applicable to individuals, it helps constitute clinical wisdom. Failure to appreciate this constitutive relation will help perpetuate medical paternalism and delay the adoption of properly evidence-based practice, which would be both unethical and unwise.

Community-based programs to promote care seat restraints in children 0-16 years - A systematic review

Study Objective: Community-based models for injury prevention have become an accepted part of the overall injury control strategy. This systematic review of the scientific literature examines the evidence for their effectiveness in reducing injury due to inadequate car seat restraint use in children 0-16 years of age. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed using the following study selection criteria: community-based intervention study: target population was children aged 0-16 years of age; outcome measure was either injury rates due to motor vehicle crashes or observed changes in child restraint use; and use of community control or historical control in the study design. Quality assessment and data abstraction was guided by a standardized procedure and performed independently by two authors. Data synthesis was in tabular and text form with meta-analysis not being possible due to the discrepancy in methods and measures between the studies. Results: This review found eight studies, that met all the inclusion criteria. In the studies that measured injury outcomes, significant reductions in risk of motor vehicle occupant injury (33-55%) were reported in the study communities. For those studies reporting observed car seat restraint use the community-based programs were successful in increasing toddler restraint use in 1-5 year aged children by up to 11%; child booster seat use in 4-8 year aged children by up to 13%; rear restraint use in children aged 0-15 years by 8%; a 50% increase in restraint use in pre-school aged children in a high-risk community; and a 44% increase in children aged 5-11 years. Conclusion: While this review highlights that there is some evidence to support the effectiveness of community-based programs to promote car restraint use and/or motor vehicle occupant injury, limitations in the evaluation methodologies of the studies requires the results to be interpreted with caution. There is clearly a need for further high quality program evaluation research to develop an evidence base. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evidence-based medicine is affordable: The cost-effectiveness of current compared with optimal treatment in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis

Objective. To determine the cost-effectiveness of averting the burden of disease. We used secondary population data and metaanalyses of various government-funded services and interventions to investigate the costs and benefits of various levels of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) in adults using a burden of disease framework. Method. Population burden was calculated for both diseases in the absence of any treatment as years lived with disability (YLD), ignoring the years of life lost. We then estimated the proportion of burden averted with current interventions, the proportion that could be averted with optimally implemented cut-rent evidence-based guidelines, and the direct treatment cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per YLD averted for both treatment levels. Results. The majority of people with arthritis sought medical treatment. Current treatment for RA averted 26% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 48% of the burden. with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,000 per YLD averted. Current treatment of OA in Australia averted 27% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 39% of the burden, with an unchanged cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Conclusion. While the precise dollar costs in each country will differ, the relativities at this level of coverage should remain the same. There is no evidence that closing the gap between evidence and practice would result in a drop in efficiency.

Providing evidence-based answers to clinical questions - A pilot information service for general practitioners

Objective: To pilot a clinical information service for general practitioners. Methods: A representative sample of 31 GPs was invited to submit clinical questions to a local academic department of general practice. Their views on the service and the usefulness of the information were obtained by telephone interview. Results: Over one month, nine GPs (29% of the sample, 45% of those stating an interest), submitted 20 enquiries comprising 45 discrete clinical questions. The median time to search for evidence, appraise it and write answers to each enquiry was 2.5 hours (range, 1.0-7.4 hours). The median interval between receipt of questions and dispatch of answers was 3 clays (range, 1-12 days). Conclusions: The GPs found the answers useful in clinical decision making; in four out of 20 cases patient management was altered.

Academic medicine: The evidence base

The International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine recognises that an evidence based approach is important in discussing the problems of academic medicine. A preliminary exploration of the evidence on academic medicine has led to a research agenda for examining and proposing realistic solutions. Copyright © 2004, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.