Thursday, March 26, 2009

Problems with Evidence Based Medicine

There is a BIG problem with Evidence Based Medicine that no one really wants to admit. That is the practice of current up to date medical diagnostics and therapeutics but with WHOS evidence.

EBM changes with the seasons, depending on the latest and greatest medical researched published in the top peer-reviewed journals (Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, etc.) But with recommendations changing so often it is confusing to both clinician and patient.

Example, the core-measures treatment of AMI with beta-blockers... considered STANDARD of care for a few years until more current research determined it to be "bad" for patients. So Practice with Caution and don't be too smitten by all that appears between the pages of medical journals. The Art of Medicine still survives.

The recent contribution in this years JAMA illustrates this point:

Scientific Evidence Underlying the ACC/AHA Clinical Practice Guidelines

Pierluigi Tricoci, MD, MHS, PhD; Joseph M. Allen, MA; Judith M. Kramer, MD, MS; Robert M. Califf, MD; Sidney C. Smith Jr, MD

JAMA. 2009;301(8):831-841. (Feb. 25, 2009)

Context The joint cardiovascular practice guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have become important documents for guiding cardiology practice and establishing benchmarks for quality of care.

Objective To describe the evolution of recommendations in ACC/AHA cardiovascular guidelines and the distribution of recommendations across classes of recommendations and levels of evidence.

Data Sources and Study Selection Data from all ACC/AHA practice guidelines issued from 1984 to September 2008 were abstracted by personnel in the ACC Science and Quality Division. Fifty-three guidelines on 22 topics, including a total of 7196 recommendations, were abstracted.

Data Extraction The number of recommendations and the distribution of classes of recommendation (I, II, and III) and levels of evidence (A, B, and C) were determined. The subset of guidelines that were current as of September 2008 was evaluated to describe changes in recommendations between the first and current versions as well as patterns in levels of evidence used in the current versions.

Results Among guidelines with at least 1 revision or update by September 2008, the number of recommendations increased from 1330 to 1973 (+48%) from the first to the current version, with the largest increase observed in use of class II recommendations. Considering the 16 current guidelines reporting levels of evidence, only 314 recommendations of 2711 total are classified as level of evidence A (median, 11%), whereas 1246 (median, 48%) are level of evidence C. Level of evidence significantly varies across categories of guidelines (disease, intervention, or diagnostic) and across individual guidelines. Recommendations with level of evidence A are mostly concentrated in class I, but only 245 of 1305 class I recommendations have level of evidence A (median, 19%).

Conclusions Recommendations issued in current ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence or expert opinion. The proportion of recommendations for which there is no conclusive evidence is also growing. These findings highlight the need to improve the process of writing guidelines and to expand the evidence base from which clinical practice guidelines are derived.

Author Affiliations: Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute (Dr Tricoci), Division of General Internal Medicine and Duke Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (Dr Kramer), and Division of Cardiology and Duke Translational Medicine Institute (Dr Califf), Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; American College of Cardiology Science and Quality Division, Washington, DC (Mr Allen); and Center for Cardiovascular Science and Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Smith).

No comments: