scholarly journals Problems and prospects of using evidence-based medicine in hygiene (systematic review)

2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (8) ◽  
pp. 750-754
Author(s):  
Aleksandr O. Karelin ◽  
Gennady B. Yeremin
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
English Language ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Classification Evaluation ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

In the modern world, the principles and methods of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM)) are the recognised basis for the development of Medicine despite the existing barriers to its implementation. EBM was formed and developed within the framework of its medical direction. In preventive medicine, the adoption of the term EBM was not accompanied by the development of appropriate definitions, standards, methods, and regulatory documents. This article discusses the problems and prospects for the development of EBM in hygienic science and practice. The authors conducted an independent screening of the frequency of publications on Preventive Medicine using the terms and provisions of EBM over the past ten years in the RSCI and MEDLINE (PubMed). The number of publications in English - language sources was found to exceed domestic ones by 45.5-139 times on all issues of EBM. In the RSCI, publications related to EBM in the preventive direction of Medicine accounted for 28 % of the total publications on EBM, in MEDLINE- 45 percentage. The data obtained indicate a more occasional use of the principles of EBM in domestic Medicine, especially in relation to preventive Medicine. Taking into account the experience of EBM in clinical Medicine, the article defines EBM, presents the stages of the EBM methodology, a variant of the hierarchy of evidence, and ideal characteristics of surrogate outcomes for preventive Medicine. For most hygiene problems, systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be the most evidence-based. The use of EBM was indicated to be impossible without understanding the fundamental principles and the correct application of biostatistics. Approaches to the classification, evaluation, development, and examination of clinical practice guidelines based on the principles of EBM, abroad and in Russia, and the possibility of their use for regulatory and methodological documents to ensure sanitary and epidemiological well-being are considered.

scholarly journals Revisiting Statistics and Evidence-Based Medicine: On the Fallacy of the Effect Size Based on Correlation and Misconception of Contingency Tables

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Roussakow
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Binary Data ◽  
Contingency Tables ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Mean Square ◽  
Bias Analysis ◽  
Contingency Coefficient ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is in crisis, in part due to bad methods, which are understood as misuse of statistics that is considered correct in itself. The correctness of the basic statistics related to the effect size (ES) based on correlation (CBES) was questioned. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulation of two paired binary samples, mathematical analysis, conceptual analysis, bias analysis. RESULTS: Actual effect size and CBES are not related. CBES is a fallacy based on misunderstanding of correlation and ES and confusion with 2 × 2 tables that makes no distinction between gross crosstabs (GCTs) and contingency tables (CTs). This leads to misapplication of Pearson’s Phi, designed for CTs, to GCTs and confusion of the resulting gross Pearson Phi, or mean-square effect half-size, with the implied Pearson mean square contingency coefficient. Generalizing this binary fallacy to continuous data and the correlation in general (Pearson’s r) resulted in flawed equations directly expressing ES in terms of the correlation coefficient, which is impossible without including covariance, so these equations and the whole CBES concept are fundamentally wrong. misconception of contingency tables (MCT) is a series of related misconceptions due to confusion with 2 × 2 tables and misapplication of related statistics. Problems arising from these fallacies are discussed and the necessary changes to the corpus of statistics are proposed resolving the problem of correlation and ES in paired binary data. CONCLUSIONS: Two related common misconceptions in statistics have been exposed, CBES and MCT. The misconceptions are threatening because most of the findings from contingency tables, including meta-analyses, can be misleading. Since exposing these fallacies casts doubt on the reliability of the statistical foundations of EBM in general, we urgently need to revise them.

scholarly journals THERAPEUTIC METHODS IN CEREBRAL PALSY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-174
Author(s):  
Leila A. Pak ◽  
K. V. Zherdev ◽  
L. M. Kuzenkova ◽  
A. L. Kurenkov ◽  
B. I. Bursagova
Keyword(s):  
Cerebral Palsy ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Vagal Stimulation ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Complementary Treatment ◽  
Epidural Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

In the article the authors consider such methods of the alternative/complementary treatment of the cerebral palsy (CP), presented in the modern domestic and foreign literature, as metabolic (amino acid composites), metamer (I.A. Skvortsov), intravenous administration of baclofen, antiepileptic (vagal stimulation, levetiracetam), acupuncture, transcranial cerebral micropolarization, epidural stimulation, modified motion-induced restriction therapy (MMIRT), stem cell therapy, as well as some other complementary/palliative approaches to the correction of clinical manifestations of various forms of CP. The final part of the article presents the attitude of modern evidence-based medicine to the main methods of the alternative/complementary treatment of cerebral palsy. These data are based almost exclusively on international systematic reviews and relevant meta-analyses.

scholarly journals Pearls for Interpreting Neurosurgical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Lessons From a Collaborative Effort

Neurosurgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M Lu ◽  
Christopher S Graffeo ◽  
Avital Perry ◽  
Michael J Link ◽  
Fredric B Meyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cranial Neuralgia ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature have surged in popularity over the last decade. It is our concern that, without a renewed effort to critically interpret and appraise these studies as high or low quality, we run the risk of the quality and value of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery being misinterpreted. Correspondingly, we have outlined 4 major domains to target in interpreting neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the lessons learned by a collaboration of clinicians and academics summarized as 4 pearls. The domains of (1) heterogeneity, (2) modeling, (3) certainty, and (4) bias in neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified as aspects in which the authors’ approaches have changed over time to improve robustness and transparency. Examples of how and why these pearls were adapted were provided in areas of cranial neuralgia, spine, pediatric, and neuro-oncology to demonstrate how neurosurgical readers and writers may improve their interpretation of these domains. The incorporation of these pearls into practice will empower neurosurgical academics to effectively interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses, enhancing the quality of our evidence-based medicine literature while maintaining a critical focus on the needs of the individual patients in neurosurgery.

scholarly journals Answering Clinical Questions with Knowledge-Based and Statistical Techniques

2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina Demner-Fushman ◽  
Jimmy Lin
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Question Answering ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Statistical Techniques ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Clinical Questions ◽  
Based Medicine

The combination of recent developments in question-answering research and the availability of unparalleled resources developed specifically for automatic semantic processing of text in the medical domain provides a unique opportunity to explore complex question answering in the domain of clinical medicine. This article presents a system designed to satisfy the information needs of physicians practicing evidence-based medicine. We have developed a series of knowledge extractors, which employ a combination of knowledge-based and statistical techniques, for automatically identifying clinically relevant aspects of MEDLINE abstracts. These extracted elements serve as the input to an algorithm that scores the relevance of citations with respect to structured representations of information needs, in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine. Starting with an initial list of citations retrieved by PubMed, our system can bring relevant abstracts into higher ranking positions, and from these abstracts generate responses that directly answer physicians' questions. We describe three separate evaluations: one focused on the accuracy of the knowledge extractors, one conceptualized as a document reranking task, and finally, an evaluation of answers by two physicians. Experiments on a collection of real-world clinical questions show that our approach significantly outperforms the already competitive PubMed baseline.

scholarly journals Current Status of Cell-Based Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (23) ◽  
pp. 8999
Author(s):  
Frantisek Jaluvka ◽  
Peter Ihnat ◽  
Juraj Madaric ◽  
Adela Vrtkova ◽  
Jaroslav Janosek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Critical Limb Ischemia ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Limb Ischemia ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cell Based Therapy ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

(1) Background: The treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is focused on improving perfusion and oxygenation in the affected limb. Standard revascularization methods include bypass surgery, endovascular interventional procedures, or hybrid revascularization. Cell-based therapy can be an alternative strategy for patients with no-option critical limb ischemia who are not eligible for endovascular or surgical procedures. (2) Aims: The aim of this narrative review was to provide an up-to-date critical overview of the knowledge and evidence-based medicine data on the position of cell therapy in the treatment of PAD. The current evidence on the cell-based therapy is summarized and future perspectives outlined, emphasizing the potential of exosomal cell-free approaches in patients with critical limb ischemia. (3) Methods: Cochrane and PubMed databases were searched for keywords “critical limb ischemia and cell therapy”. In total, 589 papers were identified, 11 of which were reviews and 11 were meta-analyses. These were used as the primary source of information, using cross-referencing for identification of additional papers. (4) Results: Meta-analyses focusing on cell therapy in PAD treatment confirm significantly greater odds of limb salvage in the first year after the cell therapy administration. Reported odds ratio estimates of preventing amputation being mostly in the region 1.6–3, although with a prolonged observation period, it seems that the odds ratio can grow even further. The odds of wound healing were at least two times higher when compared with the standard conservative therapy. Secondary endpoints of the available meta-analyses are also included in this review. Improvement of perfusion and oxygenation parameters in the affected limb, pain regression, and claudication interval prolongation are discussed. (5) Conclusions: The available evidence-based medicine data show that this technique is safe, associated with minimum complications or adverse events, and effective.

scholarly journals What is a multiple treatments meta-analysis?

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Cipriani ◽  
C. Barbui ◽  
C. Rizzo ◽  
G. Salanti
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Relative Efficacy ◽  
Analytical Technique ◽  
Multiple Treatments ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Indirect Comparisons

Standard meta-analyses are an effective tool in evidence-based medicine, but one of their main drawbacks is that they can compare only two alternative treatments at a time. Moreover, if no trials exist which directly compare two interventions, it is not possible to estimate their relative efficacy. Multiple treatments meta-analyses use a meta-analytical technique that allows the incorporation of evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons from a network of trials of different interventions to estimate summary treatment effects as comprehensively and precisely as possible.

‘Evidence-based’, ‘Cost-Effective’ and ‘Preference-Driven’ Medicine: Decision Analysis Based Medical Decision Making is the Pre-Requisite

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Dowie
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Three broad movements are seeking to change the world of medicine. The proponents of ‘evidence-based medicine’ are mainly concerned with ensuring that strategies of proven clinical effectiveness are adopted. Health economists are mainly concerned to establish that ‘cost-effectiveness’ and not ‘clinical effectiveness’ is the criterion used in determining option selection. A variety of patient support and public interest groups, including many health economists, are mainly concerned with ensuring that patient and public preferences drive clinical and policy decisions. This paper argues that decision analysis based medical decision making (DABMDM) constitutes the pre-requisite for the widespread introduction of the main principles embodied in evidence-based medicine, cost-effective medicine and preference-driven medicine; that, in the light of current modes of practice, seeking to promote these principles without a prior or simultaneous move to DABMDM is equivalent to asking the cart to move without the horse; and that in fact DABMDM subsumes and enjoins the valuable aspects of all three. Particular attention is paid to differentiating between DABMDM and EBM, by way of analysis of various expositions of EBM and examination of two recent empirical studies. EBM, as so far expounded, reflects a problem-solving attitude that results in a heavy concentration on RCTs and meta-analyses, rather than a broad decision making focus that concentrates on meeting all the requirements of a good clinical decision. The latter include: Ensuring that inferences from RCTs and meta-analyses to individual patients (or patient groups) are made explicitly; paying equally serious attention to evidence on values and costs as to clinical evidence; and accepting the inadequacy of ‘taking into account and bearing in mind’ as a way of integrating the multiple and distinct elements of a decision.

scholarly journals Computer analysis of the emotional modality of 20 million publications in PUBMED database indicates ways to increase the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy by identifying pseudoscientific publications aimed at negative emotional "pumping" of doctors

2021 ◽  
pp. 19-40
Author(s):  
V. A. Maximov ◽  
I. Yu. Torshin ◽  
O. A. Gromova ◽  
A. N. Galustyan ◽  
I. V. Gogoleva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Treatment Standards ◽  
Pronounced Increase ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Based Medicine

The search for original publications on fundamental and clinical medicine that would produce results of the highest scientific quality represents an urgent need for every medical researcher. Such publications are essential, in particular, for the development of reliable treatment standards. The Englishlanguage resources PUBMED and EMBASE are essential to help in solving this problem. However, there is an obvious problem in assessing the quality of the studies found. The paper formulates a method for analyzing the texts of biomedical publications, which is based on an algorithmic assessment of the emotional modality of medical texts (so-called sentiment analysis). The use of the topological theory of data analysis made it possible to develop a set of high-precision algorithms for identifying 16 types of sentiments (manipulative turns of speech, research without positive results, propaganda, falsification of results, negative personal attitude, aggressiveness of the text, negative emotional background, etc.). On the basis of the developed algorithms, a point scale for assessing the sentiment quality of research was obtained, which we called the "β-score": the higher the β-score, the less the evaluated text contains manipulative language constructions. As a result, the ANTIFAKE system (http://antifake-news.ru) was developed to analyze the sentiment-quality of Englishlanguage scientific texts. An analysis of ~ 20 million abstracts from PUBMED showed that publications with low sentiment quality (β-score <0, that is, that the prevalence of manipulative constructions over meaningful ones) is only 19 %. In the overwhelming majority of thematic headings (27,090 out of 27,840 headings of the MESH system PUBMED), a positive dynamics of sentiment quality of the texts of publications is shown by years). At the same time, as a result of the study, 249 headings were identified with sharply negative dynamics of sentiment quality and with a pronounced increase in manipulative sentiments characteristic of the "yellow" English-language press. These headings include tens of thousands of publications in peer-reviewed journals, which are aimed at (1) legalizing ethically unacceptable practices (euthanasia, perversions, so-called "population control", etc.), (2) discrediting psychiatry as a science, (3) media the war against micronutrients and (4) discrediting evidence-based medicine under the guise of developing the so-called "international standards of evidence-based medicine". In general, the developed system of artificial intelligence allows researchers to filter out pseudoscientific publications, the text of which is overloaded with emotional manipulation and which are published under the guise of "evidence-based standards".

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document