Finding the best scientific evidence to support clinical practice (original) (raw)

Evidence Based Medicine – New Approaches and Challenges.pdf

Evidence based medicine (EBM) is the conscientious, explicit, judicious and reasonable use of modern, best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. EBM integrates clinical experience and patient values with the best available research information. It is a movement which aims to increase the use of high quality clinical research in clinical decision making. EBM requires new skills of the clinician, including efficient literature-searching, and the application of formal rules of evidence in evaluating the clinical literature. The practice of evidence-based medicine is a process of lifelong, self-directed, problem-based learning in which caring for one's own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy and other clinical and health care issues. It is not "cookbook" with recipes, but its good application brings cost-effective and better health care. The key difference between evidence-based medicine and traditional medicine is not that EBM considers the evidence while the latter does not. Both take evidence into account; however, EBM demands better evidence than has traditionally been used. One of the greatest achievements of evidence-based medicine has been the development of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, methods by which researchers identify multiple studies on a topic, separate the best ones and then critically analyze them to come up with a summary of the best available evidence. The EBM-oriented clinicians of tomorrow have three tasks: a) to use evidence summaries in clinical practice; b) to help develop and update selected systematic reviews or evidence-based guidelines in their area of expertise; and c) to enrol patients in studies of treatment, diagnosis and prognosis on which medical practice is based.

Clinical Evidence: a useful tool for promoting evidence-based practice

BMC Health Services Research, 2003

Background Research has shown that many healthcare professionals have problems with guidelines as they would prefer to be given all relevent information relevent to decision-making rather than being told what they should do. This study assesses doctors' judgement of the validity, relevance, clarity and usability of the Italian translation of Clinical Evidence (CE) after its free distribution launched by the Italian Ministry of Health Methods Opinions elicited using a standardised questionnaire delivered either by mail or during educational or professional meetings Results Twenty percent (n = 1350) doctors participated the study. Most of them found CE's content valid, useful and relevant for their clinical practice, and said CE can foster communications among clinicians, particularly among GPs and specialists. Hospital doctors (63%) more often than GPs (48%) read the detailed presentation of individual chapters. Twenty-nine percent said CE brought changes in their clinical practice. Doctors appreciated CE's nature of an evidence-based information compendium and would have not preferred a collection of practice guidelines. Conclusions Overall, the pilot initiative launched by the Italian Ministry of Health seems to have been well received and to support the subsequent decision to make the Italian edition of Clinical Evidence concise available to all doctors practising in the country. Local implementation initiatives should be warranted to favour doctor's use of CE.

Bridges between Health Care Research Evidence and Clinical Practice

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 1995

R esearch is producing increasing amounts of important new evidence for health care, but there is a large gap between what this evidence shows can be done and the care that most patients actually receive. An important reason for this gap is the extensive processing that evidence requires before application. This article discusses a three-step model for bridging research evidence to management of clinical problems: getting the evidence straight, formulating evidencebased clinical policies, and applying evidence-based clinical policies at the right place and time. This model is purposely broad in scope and provides a framework for coordinating efforts to support evidence-based medical care. The authors' purpose is to represent the roles of health informatics in the context of the roles of all the key players, including health care researchers and practitioners, health care organizations, and the public. Health informatics has already made important contributions to bridging evidence to practice, including improving evidence retrieval, evaluation, and synthesis; new evidence-based information products; and computerized aids for facilitating the use of these products during clinical decision making. However, much more innovation and coordination are needed. The authors call for health informaticians to pay balanced attention to 1) the quality of evidence embodied in information innovations, 2) the performance of technologies and systems that retrieve, prepare, disseminate, and apply evidence, and 3) the fit of information tools to the specific clinical circumstances in which evidence is to be applied. Effective interdisciplinary teams that include health services researchers and other evidence experts, clinical practitioners, informaticians, and health care managers are needed to achieve success. Informaticians can make increasingly important contributions to the transfer of health care research by joining such teams.

The challenge of evidence in clinical medicine

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2010

The primary goal of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been to change the way clinicians make decisions. But EBM has inappropriately privileged the results of clinical research for medical decision making and has undermined the importance of other kinds of medical knowledge, pathophysiologic understanding and clinical experience, to clinical practice. Here, the specific advantages and limitations of each kind of medical knowledge are examined. No particular kind of medical knowledge is necessarily more compelling than the others when it comes to making specific patient care decisions. Several cases where medical knowledge is conflicting are examined to demonstrate the weighting and negotiation necessary for sound clinical judgement. Expert clinicians must utilize a variety of reasons and methods of reasoning in arriving at the best clinical decision or recommendation for an individual patient. The process can be formalized and made explicit, but it cannot be narrowed, simplified and focused only on the results of clinical research.

Evidence Based Medicine – New Approaches and Challenges

Acta Informatica Medica, 2008

Finding the best scientific evidence to support clinical practice (original) (raw)

Related papers