Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Prof. dr. Mohammad Hakimi, SpOG(K), PhD. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology Gadjah Mada University Faculty of Medicine
Introduction to EBM Asking answerable questions How to find current best evidence
Postmenopausal estrogen therapy and cardiovascular disease. Ten-year follow-up from the nurses' health study. (Stampfer et al., 1991)
Method:
Up to 10 year follow up of 48,470 post-menopausal women, 30 to 63 years old, who did not have a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline After adjustment of age and other risk factors, the relative risk of coronary heart disease in women currently taking estrogen was 0.56 (90% C.I. 0.40-0.80)
Result:
Eighty-two percent of 1383 cardiologists, internists, family doctors, and general practitioners surveyed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) reported that they prescribe hormone replacement therapy Of those who prescribe it, 93% do so for relief of menopausal symptoms and 91% for osteoporosis However, 41% also prescribe it for high blood cholesterol, and 66% prescribe it for coronary heart disease
Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women (Womens Health Initiative
Investigators, 2002)
Design:
Randomized controlled trial of 16,608 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years with an intact uterus at baseline
Result:
Estimated hazard ratios for CHD = 1.29 (90% C.I. 1.02-1.63)
Gabriel-Sanchez R, Carmona L, Roque M, Sanchez-Gomez LM, Bonfill X. Hormone replacement therapy for preventing cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005,
No protective effect of HRT was seen for any of the cardiovascular outcomes assessed: all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, venous thrombo-emboli or stroke. Higher risks of venous thrombo-embolic events (Relative risk (RR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.86), pulmonary embolus (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.28), and stroke (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.89) was found in those randomized to HRT compared with placebo.
Treatments should be given not because they ought to work, but because they do work Treatments should be avoided not because they ought to cause harm, but because they do cause harm
Half of what you are taught as medical students will in 10 years have been shown to be wrong. And the trouble is, none of your teachers knows which half.
(Dr. Sydney Burwell, Dean of Harvard Medical School).
Hierarchy of evidence
Quality Type of evidence
1a (best) 1b Systematic review of randomized controlled trials Individual randomized controlled trials with narrow confidence interval
1c
2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 4
All or none case series (when all patients died before a new therapy was introduced, but patients receiving the new therapy now survive)
Systematic review of cohort studies Individual cohort study or randomized controlled trials with <80% follow up Outcome research; ecological studies Systematic review of case-control studies Individual case-control study Case series
5 (worst)
Expert opinion
Strength of Recommendation
A B Strong evidence of efficacy and substantial clinical benefit support a recommendation for use Moderate evidence of efficacy or strong evidence of efficacy but limited clinical benefit support a recommendation for use
D
E
Insufficient evidence to support a recommendation for or against use, or evidence of efficacy might not outweigh adverse consequences or alternative approaches Moderate evidence of lack of efficacy or of adverse outcome support a recommendation against use
Good evidence of lack of efficacy or of adverse outcome supports a recommendation against use
1.0
2.0
Rare/Never Specofic 17 4 7 3 8 4 2 8 6 5 2 9 3 Routine
2
1 4 4 5 3 4 5 1
Favors Ctrl
4 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 6 1
1686 1986
1990
p=NS
Favors Tx
0.5
1
23 65
143
1.0
2.0
Rare/Never Specific Routine
2 3 4 7 10 11 15 17 22 23 27 30 33 43 54 65 67 67
316
1783 2544 2651 3311 3929 5452 5767 6125 6346 6571
p < 0.01
1 1 2
p < 0.001 p < 0.0001 5 15 6
Favors Tx Favors Ctrl
1990
1 1 1 2 8 1
8 7 2
21 5 10 2 8 7 8 12 4 3 1 6
Precise definition of the clinical problem (population, intervention, outcome) Searching literature Evaluating the strength of evidence Extracting the information Arriving at the bottom line Applying information to patient care Summarizing information for future use
EBM solutions
Pre-digested presentation of data (ACP Journal Club, Best Evidence) Coordinated effort in producing valid summary data (Cochrane Collaboration, Clinical Evidence) Production of EBM oriented textbooks (UpToDate)
Do it all yourself
Do nothing yourself
Follow EBM practice developed by others From asking question to applying answer Resembles expert-based way, only experts are different Saving time
Use EBM-related materials Searching, appraising, and extracting data much easier (done by others)
People producing evidence (researchers) People distributing evidence (editors) People telling others what to do (authors of practice guidelines, managers, decision makers, pharmaceutical representatives) Clinical teachers and supervisors Anybody who wants to make independent decisions
Closing Remarks
Medicine is not just a scienceit is a human activity. It entails ritual, custom, and the expectations of doctors, patients, and society. To safeguard against ineffective or harmful health care we need doctors who:
want to do the best they can for their patients, are willing to continually question their own managements, and have readily available sources of information about what does work.