This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (30)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Quality of Care, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Gaëtane Michaud, BS, BEd, MD; Jessie L. McGowan, BMus, MLIS; Richard van der Jagt, MD, FRCPC; George Wells, PhD; Peter Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC

Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1665-1668.

Background  One of the most common decisions physicians face is deciding which therapeutic intervention is the most appropriate for their patients. In recent years much emphasis has been placed on making clinical decisions that are based on evidence from the medical literature. Despite the emphasis on incorporation of evidence-based medicine into the undergraduate curriculum and postgraduate medical training programs, there has been controversy regarding the proportion of interventions that are supported by health care research.

Objective  To investigate the proportion of major therapeutic interventions at our institution that are justified by published evidence.

Methods  One hundred fifty charts from the internal medicine department were reviewed retrospectively. The main diagnosis, therapy provided, and patient profile were identified and a literature search using MEDLINE was performed. A standardized search strategy was developed with high sensitivity and specificity for identifying publication quality. The level of evidence to support each clinical decision was ranked according to a predetermined classification. In this system there were 6 distinct levels, which are explained in the study.

Results  Of the decisions studied, 20.9% could be supported by placebo-controlled randomized trials and 43.9% by head-to-head trials. Half of these were shown to be significantly superior to the treatment against which it was being compared. For 10 of the 150 clinical decisions, evidence was found demonstrating alternative therapies as being more effective than that selected.

Conclusions  Most primary therapeutic clinical decisions in 3 general medicine services are supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. This should be reassuring to those who are concerned about the extent to which clinical medicine is based on empirical evidence. This finding has potential for quality assurance, as exemplified by the discovery that a literature search could have potentially improved these decisions in some cases.

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital/University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario.

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Evaluating evidence-based practice performance
Green
Evid. Based Med. 2006;11:99-101.
FULL TEXT  

Raising the Bar: A Primer On Evidence-Based Decision-Making
Cheng and Martin
SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTH 2005;9:1-4.
 

Evidence-Based Medicine in the ICU: Important Advances and Limitations
Vincent
Chest 2004;126:592-600.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How evidence based are therapeutic decisions taken on a medical admissions unit?
Hardern et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2003;20:447-448.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is ophthalmology evidence based? A clinical audit of the emergency unit of a regional eye hospital
Lai et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:385-390.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Integrating Research Into the Clinic: What Evidence Based Practice Means to the Practising Podiatrist
Keenan and Redmond
J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2002;92:115-122.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT