scholarly journals Removal of C-spine protection by A&E triage nurses: a prospective trial of a clinical decision making instrument

2006 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Pitt
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Florian Roghmann ◽  
Peter J. Goebell ◽  
Lars Dyrskjøt ◽  
Bas W.G. van Rhijn ◽  
Heiko U. Käfferlein ◽  
...  

Marker research and, in particular urine bladder cancer marker research throughout the past three decades, devours enormous scientific resources in terms of manpower (not to mention time spent on reviewing and editorial efforts) and financial resources finally generating large numbers of manuscripts without affecting clinical decision making. This is mirrored by the fact that current guidelines do not recommend marker use due to missing level 1 evidence. Although we recognize the problems and obstacles, the authors of this commentary feel that the time has come to abandon the current procedures and move on to prospective trial designs implementing marker results into clinical decision making. Our thoughts and concerns are summarized in this comment.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document