Beyond the Pro and Contra of Evidence-Based Practice: Reflections on a Recurring Dilemma at the Core of Social Work

Currently, social work is witnessing a quite polarized debate about what should be the basis for good practice. Simply stated, the different attempts to define the required basis for effective and accountable interventions in social work practice can be grouped in two paradigmatic positions, which seem to be in strong opposition to each other. On the one hand the highly influential evidence based practice movement highlights the necessity to base practice interventions on proven effectiveness from empirical research. Despite some variations, such as between narrow conceptions of evidence based practice (see e.g. McNeece/Thyer, 2004) and broader approaches to it (see e.g. Gambrill, 1999, 2001, 2008), the evidence based practice movement embodies a positivist orientation and more explicitly scientific aspirations of social work by using positivistic empirical strategies. Critics of the evidence based practice movement argue that its narrow epistemological assumptions are not appropriate for the understanding of social phenomena and that evidence based guidelines to practice are insufficient to deal with the extremely complex activities social work practice requires in different and always somewhat unique practice situations (Webb, 2001; Gray & Mc Donald, 2006; Otto, Polutta &Ziegler, 2009). Furthermore critics of evidence based practice argue that it privileges an uncritical and a-political positivism which seems highly problematic in the current climate of welfare state reforms, in which the question ‘what works’ is highly politicized and the legitimacy of professional social work practice is being challenged maybe more than ever before (Kessl, 2009). Both opponents and proponents of evidence based practice argue on the epistemological, the methodological and the ethical level to sustain their point of view and raise fundamental questions about the real nature of social work practice, so that one could get the impression that social work is really at the crossroads between two very different conceptions of social work practice and its further professional development (Stepney, 2009). However, this article is not going to merely rehearse the pro and contra of different positions that are being invoked in the debate about evidence based practice. Instead it aims to go further by identifying the dilemmas underlying these positions which - so it is argued – re-emerge in the debate about evidence based practice, but which are older than this debate. They concern the fundamental ambivalence modern professionalization processes in social work were subjected to from their very beginnings.

Effects of Bovine Somatotropin and Revalor-S® on Growth Performance and Carcass Leanness in Beef Cattle

Twenty crossbred steers were used to evaluate bovine somatotropin (bST) and an anabolic steroid implant, Revalor-S® (REV), to improve growth and increase carcass leanness. During the first 70 days on feed, bST-treated steers tended to improve live weight gains, consume more feed, and numerically improve feed utilization for growth. The implanted steers grew faster and utilized feed better than steers not implanted with REV. The improvement in gain and feed utilization for growth was maintained throughout the feeding period for REV-implanted steers. At slaughter, REV steers had heavier carcasses which resulted in more pounds of muscle, bone, and fat. When adjusted for hot carcass weight, bST increased leanness of the carcass as evident by the increased weight of the semitendinosus muscle, more pounds of dissected lean, and fewer pounds of dissected fat. Thus, REV and bST can be used to improve growth performance and increase carcass leanness.

Impact of overlapping newer generation drug-eluting stents on clinical and angiographic outcomes: pooled analysis of five trials from the international Global RESOLUTE Program

BACKGROUND Overlapping first generation sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents are associated with persistent inflammation, fibrin deposition and delayed endothelialisation in preclinical models, and adverse angiographic and clinical outcomes--including death and myocardial infarction (MI)--in clinical studies. OBJECTIVES To establish as to whether there are any safety concerns with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). DESIGN Propensity score adjustment of baseline anatomical and clinical characteristics were used to compare clinical outcomes (Kaplan-Meier estimates) between patients implanted with overlapping DES (Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) or R-ZES/other DES) against no overlapping DES. Additionally, angiographic outcomes for overlapping R-ZES and everolimus-eluting stents were evaluated in the randomised RESOLUTE All-Comers Trial. SETTING Patient level data from five controlled studies of the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program evaluating the R-ZES were pooled. Enrollment criteria were generally unrestrictive. PATIENTS 5130 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 2-year clinical outcomes and 13-month angiographic outcomes. RESULTS 644 of 5130 patients (12.6%) in the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program underwent overlapping DES implantation. Implantation of overlapping DES was associated with an increased frequency of MI and more complex/calcified lesion types at baseline. Adjusted in-hospital, 30-day and 2-year clinical outcomes indicated comparable cardiac death (2-year overlap vs non-overlap: 3.0% vs 2.1%, p=0.36), major adverse cardiac events (13.3% vs 10.7%, p=0.19), target-vessel MI (3.9% vs 3.4%, p=0.40), clinically driven target vessel revascularisation (7.7% vs 6.5%, p=0.32), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.4% vs 0.9%, p=0.28). 13-month adjusted angiographic outcomes were comparable between overlapping and non-overlapping DES. CONCLUSIONS Overlapping newer generation DES are safe and effective, with comparable angiographic and clinical outcomes--including repeat revascularisation--to non-overlapping DES.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. BACKGROUND A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. METHODS AND RESULTS Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses - part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients, clinicians and policy-makers facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on improving the interpretability of meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, typically continuous in nature, is likely to enhance decision-making. The objective of this paper is to summarize approaches to enhancing the interpretability of pooled estimates of PROs in meta-analyses. When differences in PROs between groups are statistically significant, decision-makers must be able to interpret the magnitude of effect. This is challenging when, as is often the case, clinical trial investigators use different measurement instruments for the same construct within and between individual randomized trials. For such cases, in addition to pooling results as a standardized mean difference, we recommend that systematic review authors use other methods to present results such as relative (relative risk, odds ratio) or absolute (risk difference) dichotomized treatment effects, complimented by presentation in either: natural units (e.g. overall depression reduced by 2.4 points when measured on a 50-point Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression); minimal important difference units (e.g. where 1.0 unit represents the smallest difference in depression that patients, on average, perceive as important the depression score was 0.38 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.47) units less than the control group); or a ratio of means (e.g. where the mean in the treatment group is divided by the mean in the control group, the ratio of means is 1.27, representing a 27%relative reduction in the mean depression score).