The influence of evidence-based medicine training on decision-making in relation to over-the-counter medicines: a qualitative study

Objectives
To explore the role of evidence of effectiveness when making decisions about over-the-counter (OTC) medication and to ascertain whether evidence-based medicine training raised awareness in decision-making. Additionally, this work aimed to complement the findings of a previous study because all participants in this current study had received training in evidence-based medicine (unlike the previous participants).

Methods
Following ethical approval and an e-mailed invitation, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with newly registered pharmacists (who had received training in evidence-based medicine as part of their MPharm degree) to discuss the role of evidence of effectiveness with OTC medicines. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Following transcription, all data were entered into the NVivo software package (version 8). Data were coded and analysed using a constant comparison approach.

Key findings
Twenty-five pharmacists (7 males and 18 females; registered for less than 4 months) were recruited and all participated in the study. Their primary focus with OTC medicines was safety; sales of products (including those that lack evidence of effectiveness) were justified provided they did no harm. Meeting patient expectation was also an important consideration and often superseded evidence. Despite knowledge of the concept, and an awareness of ethical requirements, an evidence-based approach was not routinely implemented by these pharmacists. Pharmacists did not routinely utilize evidence-based resources when making decisions about OTC medicines and some felt uncomfortable discussing the evidence-base for OTC products with patients.

Conclusions
The evidence-based medicine training that these pharmacists received appeared to have limited influence on OTC decision-making. More work could be conducted to ensure that an evidence-based approach is routinely implemented in practice

Médecine factuelle (Evidence-Based Medicine)

Présenté à la journée de formation de l'Asted - section des bibliothèques de la santé, le 10 mai 2002 .

Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: What about in 2011? the next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age

Rationale and aim The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. Methods A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups. Results We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%. Conclusion Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Evidence-based medicine: an update on treatments for peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis

Peritonitis continues to be a major complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), and adequate treatment is crucial for a favorable outcome. There is no consensus regarding the optimal therapeutic regimen, and few prospective controlled studies have been published. The objective of this manuscript is to review the results of PD peritonitis treatment reported in narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and proportional meta-analyses. Two narrative reviews, the only existing systematic review and its update published between 1991 and 2014 were included. In addition, we reported the results of a proportional meta-analysis published by our group. Results from systematic reviews of randomized control trials (RCT) and quasi-RCT were not able to identify any optimal antimicrobial treatment, but glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure than a first generation cephalosporin. Compared to urokinase, simultaneous catheter removal and replacement resulted in better outcomes. Continuous and intermittent IP antibiotic use had similar outcomes. Intraperitoneal antibiotics were superior to intravenous antibiotics in reducing treatment failure. In the proportional meta-analysis of RCTs and the case series, the resolution rate (86%) of ceftazidime plus glycopeptide as initial treatment was significantly higher than first generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycosides (66%) and glycopeptides plus aminoglycosides (75%). Other comparisons of regimens used for either initial treatment or treatment of gram-positive rods or gram-negative rods did not show statistically significant differences. The superiority of a combination of a glycopeptide and a third generation cephalosporin was also reported by a narrative review study published in 1991, which reported an 88% resolution rate.