open access

Vol 49, No 5 (2017)
Editorials
Published online: 2017-11-11
Submitted: 2017-10-16
Accepted: 2017-11-06
Get Citation

The future of evidence-based medicine: is the frog still boiling?

David J.J. Muckart, Manu L.N.G. Malbrain
DOI: 10.5603/AIT.a2017.0059
·
Pubmed: 29150997
·
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2017;49(5):329-335.

open access

Vol 49, No 5 (2017)
Editorials
Published online: 2017-11-11
Submitted: 2017-10-16
Accepted: 2017-11-06

Abstract

Not available

Abstract

Not available
Get Citation

Keywords

evidence based medicine; boiling frog; publication bias; negative studies; sponsorship; ghost authors, guest authors, data fabrication; statistical significance; clinical significance; selection bias; misclassification; confounding; evidence pyramid

About this article
Title

The future of evidence-based medicine: is the frog still boiling?

Journal

Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy

Issue

Vol 49, No 5 (2017)

Pages

329-335

Published online

2017-11-11

DOI

10.5603/AIT.a2017.0059

Pubmed

29150997

Bibliographic record

Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2017;49(5):329-335.

Keywords

evidence based medicine
boiling frog
publication bias
negative studies
sponsorship
ghost authors
guest authors
data fabrication
statistical significance
clinical significance
selection bias
misclassification
confounding
evidence pyramid

Authors

David J.J. Muckart
Manu L.N.G. Malbrain

References (51)
  1. Muckart DJJ. Evidence-based medicine - are we boiling the frog? S Afr Med J. 2013; 103(7): 447–448.
  2. Zimmerman L, Cartwright F. The Development of Modern Surgery. The American Historical Review. 1968; 74(1): 106.
  3. Miller DW, Miller CG. On Evidence, Medical and Legal. J American Physicians and Surgeons. 2005; 10: 70–75.
  4. Karanicolas PJ, Kunz R, Guyatt GH. Point: evidence-based medicine has a sound scientific base. Chest. 2008; 133(5): 1067–1071.
  5. Tobin MJ. Counterpoint: evidence-based medicine lacks a sound scientific base. Chest. 2008; 133(5): 1071–4; discussion 1074.
  6. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997; 315(7109): 640–645.
  7. Montori VM, Smieja M, Guyatt GH. Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000; 75(12): 1284–1288.
  8. Gregor S, Maegele M, Sauerland S, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy: a vacuum of evidence? Arch Surg. 2008; 143(2): 189–196.
  9. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. 2004; 363(9418): 1341–1345.
  10. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986; 4(10): 1529–1541.
  11. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA. 2008; 299(15): 1833–1835.
  12. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990; 263(10): 1405–1408.
  13. Laine C, Horton R, De Angelis C, et al. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Clinical trial registration – looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 2734–2736.
  14. Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA. 2008; 299(15): 1813–1817.
  15. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, et al. Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ. 2003; 326(7400): 1171–1173.
  16. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(3): 252–260.
  17. Angell M. Industry-sponsored clinical research: a broken system. JAMA. 2008; 300(9): 1069–1071.
  18. Steinbrook R. Gag clauses in clinical-trial agreements. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352(21): 2160–2162.
  19. Rennie D. Trial registration: a great idea switches from ignored to irresistible. JAMA. 2004; 292(11): 1359–1362.
  20. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S, et al. Institutional academic industry relationships. JAMA. 2007; 298(15): 1779–1786.
  21. Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ. 2002; 325(7358): 249.
  22. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, et al. Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials. JAMA. 2003; 290(7): 921.
  23. Ioannidis JPA. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005; 294(2): 218–228.
  24. Pereira TV, Horwitz RI, Ioannidis JPA. Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. JAMA. 2012; 308(16): 1676–1684.
  25. Conflicts of interests and investments. CMAJ. 2004; 171(11): 1313.
  26. Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, et al. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA. 2008; 299(15): 1800–1812.
  27. Sismondo S. Ghost management: how much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry? PLoS Med. 2007; 4(9): e286.
  28. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009; 4(5): e5738.
  29. Hall J. How to dissect surgical journals: VIII - Comparing outcomes. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2011; 81(3): 190–196.
  30. Luus HG, Muller FO, Meyer BH. Statistical significance versus clinical relevance. S Afr J Med. 1989; 76(568): 570.
  31. Hadler NM. The Last Well Person. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston. 2004: 35–43.
  32. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995; 333(20): 1301–1307.
  33. Newell DJ. Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. Int J Epidemiol. 1992; 21(5): 837–841.
  34. Armijo-Olivo S, Warren S, Magee D. Intention to treat analysis, compliance, drop-outs and how to deal with missing data in clinical research: a review. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2013; 14(1): 36–49.
  35. Sweeting MJ, Patel R, Powell JT, et al. EVAR Trial Investigators, United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm in patients physically ineligible for open repair. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(20): 1872–1880.
  36. Davidson RA. Does it work or not: clinical versus statistical significance. Chest. 1994; 106: 932–934.
  37. Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, et al. POISE Study Group. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008; 371(9627): 1839–1847.
  38. Tobin MJ, Jubran A. Meta-analysis under the spotlight: focused on a meta-analysis of ventilator weaning. Crit Care Med. 2008; 36(1): 1–7.
  39. Deans KJ, Minneci PC, Danner RL, et al. Practice misalignments in randomized controlled trials: Identification, impact, and potential solutions. Anesth Analg. 2010; 111(2): 444–450.
  40. Vincent JL. We should abandon randomized controlled trials in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2010; 38(10 Suppl): S534–S538.
  41. Greenland S. Can meta-analysis be salvaged? Am J Epidemiol. 1994; 140(9): 783–787.
  42. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Platt RW, et al. The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008; 8: 19.
  43. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. 2006.
  44. Zarychanski R, Abou-Setta AM, Turgeon AF, et al. Association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients requiring volume resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2013; 309(7): 678–688.
  45. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, et al. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 166(10): 1203–1209.
  46. Holmes D, Murray SJ, Perron A, et al. Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power and fascism. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2006; 4(3): 180–186.
  47. Osler W. On the Educational Value of the Medical Society. The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. 1903; 148(11): 275–279.
  48. Woolf S. Do clinical practice guidelines define good medical care? Chest. 1998; 113(3).
  49. Tobin M. Rebuttal From Dr. Tobin. Chest. 2008; 133(5): 1076–1077.
  50. Juurlink DN, Mamdani MM, Lee DS, et al. Rates of hyperkalemia after publication of the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(6): 543–551.
  51. Smith GCS, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003; 327(7429): 1459–1461.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

VM Media sp. z o.o. VM Group sp.k., Grupa Via Medica, Świętokrzyska 73 St., 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl