You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 143 No. 10, October 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  SPECIAL REPORT
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Problems in the Handling of Clinical and Research Evidence by Medical Practitioners

R. Brian Haynes, MD, PhD; David L. Sackett, MD, MSc Epid; Peter Tugwell, MD, MSc

Arch Intern Med. 1983;143(10):1971-1975.


Abstract

• There are important problems in the accuracy with which we collect, interpret, communicate, and apply clinical and relevant research evidence in the care of our patients. Many of these problems can be avoided or ameliorated by applying some specific measurement principles and information tools. The collection of clinical evidence can be improved by adhering to strategies that reduce observer error. The interpretation of clinical and paraclinical information can be improved by harnessing the predictive value of this information to estimates of the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic responsiveness of patients. Communication can be improved by replacing the ambiguous argot of clinical equivocation with a more precise terminology. The detection of both valid and useful new knowledge can be facilitated by applying some straightforward guidelines to the rapid critical appraisal of the medical literature. Finally, we can look to advances in information technology to help us become more consistent in providing the best possible care for our patients.

(Arch Intern Med 1983;143:1971-1975)



Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication April 18, 1983.

Reprints not available.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Critical appraisal using the READER method: a workshop-based controlled trial
Macauley and Mccrum
Fam Pract 1999;16:90-93.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Basis for Using the Internet to Support the Information Needs of Primary Care
Westberg and Miller
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 1999;6:6-25.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Biostatistics in Otolaryngology Journals
Rosenfeld and Rockette
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;117:1172-1176.
ABSTRACT  

A Proposal for More Informative Abstracts of Clinical Articles
AD HOC WORKING GROUP FOR CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE
ANN INTERN MED 1987;106:598-604.
ABSTRACT  

On-line Data Bases
Toups
Arch Intern Med 1984;144:857-857.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1983 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.