Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
In this section we will discuss several case studies that show how EBP can help in a range of clinical situations. You can then think of a clinical question of your own and we will try to answer it.
A 58 year old who was visiting her !P a"out another #atter said$ as an aside$ %&an you do anything a"out a cough'( )he had had a persistent cough for *+ years with various treat#ents "ut no cure. )he had "een referred twice to physicians. ,h e !P searched Pu"-ed .the we" "ased version of -E/0I1E2 using %&linical 3ueries($ which is a category of Pu"-ed designed for clinicians .see pages 545582. ,h e search for persistent cough revealed that the #ost co##on causes are6 7 postnasal drip 7 asth#a 7 chronic "ronchitis. ,h e !P thought the cough was #ost likely to "e due to asth#a$ and prescri"ed appropriate fi rst line treat#ent. ,h e patient thought she had already tried that treat#ent and that it did not work "ut tried it again anyway$ without success. 8owever$ the search also showed that gastro oesophageal refl u9 is a less co##on "ut possi"le cause of persistent cough .:+; of cases2$ which the !P had not known "efore. ,h e !P therefore reco##ended the patient to take antacids at night and raise the head of her "ed. After one week$ her cough disappeared for the fi rst ti#e in *+ years and has not co#e "ack since.
,h is case raises interesting questions of what doctors %should( know. It was written up in the B-< and pu"lished as an e9a#ple of how EBP can help !Ps. 8owever$ so#e physicians wrote in saying that %everyone should know( that gastro oesophageal refl u9 was a possi"le cause of cough. ,h e author replied that although respiratory physicians #ight know this infor#ation$ !Ps did not necessarily know it. An anaesthetist wrote in to say that after reading the article he had "een treated for gastro oesophageal refl u9$ which had cured a cough he had had for =+ years> Conclusion: EBP can help you find the infor#ation you need$ whether or not you %should( already know it.
Reference:
!las?iou P .:@@82. Evidence "ased case report6 ,wenty year cough in a non s#oker. British Medical Journal =:46:44+5:44:
In this case$ EBP helped "ecause the e#pirical data were easy for the patient to understand and he could participate in the clinical decision. As the culture of health care changes further towards consu#er participation in health care decision #aking$ patients will de#and this type of infor#ation.
Reference:
&u##ings P .:@@A2. Anti"iotics to prevent infection in patients with dog "ite wounds6 a #etaanalysis of rando#i?ed trials. Annals of Emergency Medicine *=65=555A+.
,h e lesson fro# this case concerns the practical versus the e#pirical. /octors tend to think along the lines of6
Blood does not "elong in the urine so it #ust "e co#ing fro# so#ewhere. It could "e co#ing fro# a potentially serious cause$ such as "ladder cancer.
E#pirical questions$ on the other hand$ ask a"out outco#es F in this case$ whether conventional investigation leads to "etter health outco#es. 8ere$ the evidence .surprisingly2 showed that such investigation provides no "enefi t$ "ecause #icroscopic hae#aturia see#s to "e no #ore prevalent a#ong those who later develop urological cancer than those who do not. Dnce again$ "eing e#pirical and quantitative allows patients to participate #uch #ore fully in clinical decisions.
Study 1
:+$+++ #en were screened. A"out *5+ .*.5;2 had hae#aturia. ,h ese #en were asked to visit their !P and a"out :5+ .4+;2 did so. Df those$ only three had a serious pro"le#. Df these6 7 * had "ladder cancer 7 : had refl u9 nephropathy. ,h is shows that there is a"out a : in 5+ chance of having a serious disease.
Study 2
As part of a personal health appraisal$ *+$+++ #en were given a urine test. Gollow up studies of the #en who were positive for hae#aturia found three cancers per year$ or :.5 cancers per :+++ person years. 8owever$ the people who did not have hae#aturia were also followed up and the rate of cancer for these people was
Reference:
/el -ar & .*+++2. Asy#pto#atic hae#aturia H in the doctor. British Medical Journal =*+6:455:44.
,h is case raises the issue of possi"le litigation. Ihat if the patient is not tested and later develops a serious disease' 8owever$ "ecause EBP i#proves co##unication "etween doctors and patients and allows patients to share decision #aking$ it protects doctors fro# litigation ."ecause #ost litigation happens when there is a "reakdown in co##unication2. EBP analyses have already "een used in the courts and have "een well accepted. )uch e#pirical evidence has saved doctors fro# trou"le when opinion #ay have da#ned the#.