Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Evidence-Based Medicine Needs Proper Critical Review

Goodman, Neville W., DPhil, FRCA

doi: 10.1097/00000539-200212000-00065
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Letters & Announcements
Free

Southmead Hospital

Bristol, UK

To the Editor:

Proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM) insist that reviewers search thoroughly for all evidence relevant to a clinical question. Yet when reviewing the subject of EBM itself, these same proponents seem curiously blind to criticism. In their “review,” Pronovost et al. (1) do not review the considerable academic debate that there has been over EBM; they merely describe what EBM is, and how anesthetists should go about it. At the very least, they should have cited Horan’s editorial (2), and answered the points he made.

No one argues against using evidence when choosing treatments; the disagreements arise when we consider what evidence is appropriate. Pronovost et al. rightly state that the philosophical foundation for EBM is clinical epidemiology—but this is the core of the problem. As Charlton pointed out (3,4), and as I have cited before (5), epidemiology does not provide the information necessary to treat individuals. There are also difficulties with randomized controlled trials (6), to which EBM—even if it does include other forms of evidence—tends to give precedence.

There is no space in a letter to present arguments in detail, but there is plenty of material for interested readers, for example (7–11). It is a shame that Pronovost et al. did not cite any at all; Greenhalgh (12) —also an enthusiast for evidence-based medicine—managed to do so in a recent essay.

An irony of evidence-based medicine is that it claims to be nonauthoritarian; unlike the old authority of expert-based medicine, anyone can learn the techniques, and therefore anyone can apply them. But the reality is that individual practitioners do not have the time to apply EBM to every clinical question, and therefore have to rely on EBM as the new authority. It is an added irony that Pronovost et al. cite, as a source for “well described methods for their conduct,” the Cochrane systematic review of the use of albumin. This review was severely criticized at the time (13), and later by Horsey (14), who reexamined the included trials, and was also critical that the reviewing group did not include an intensive care clinician.

Pronovost et al. cite a paper (15) that is a light-hearted summary of alternatives to EBM such as “eminence-based medicine,” a paper that has a footnote in which the authors explicitly state that they each contributed half the jokes. This is a variation on what Shahar (16) wrote was the most common method of responding to criticism of EBM: turning a deaf ear.

Neville W. Goodman, DPhil, FRCA

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Dorman T, et al. Evidence-based medicine in anesthesiology. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 787–94.
2. Horan BF. Evidence-based medicine and anaesthesia: uneasy bedfellows? Anaesth Intensive Care 1997; 25: 679–85.
3. Charlton BG. The scope and nature of epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 623–6.
4. Charlton BG. Restoring the balance: evidence-based medicine put in its place. J Eval Clin Pract 1997; 3: 87–98.
5. Goodman NW. Anaesthesia and evidence-based medicine. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 353–68.
6. Feinstein AR, Horwitz RI. Problems in the “evidence” of “evidence-based medicine.” Am J Med 1997; 103: 529–35.
7. LeLorier J, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 536–42.
8. Bailar JC III. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 559–61.
9. Black D. The limitations of evidence. J Roy Coll Phys Lond 1998; 32: 23–36.
10. Couto JS. Evidence-based medicine: a Kuhnian perspective of a transvestite non-theory. J Eval Clin Pract 1999; 4: 267–75.
11. Rees J. Evidence-based medicine: the epistemiology that isn’t. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 43: 727–9.
12. Greenhalgh T. Intuition and evidence: uneasy bedfellows. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52: 395–400.
13. Swales JD. The troublesome search for evidence: three cultures in need of integration. J R Soc Med 2000; 93: 402–7.
14. Horsey P. Albumin and hypovolaemia: is the Cochrane evidence to be trusted? Lancet 2002; 359: 70–2.
15. Isaacs D, Fitzgerald D. Seven alternatives to evidence-based medicine. BMJ 1999; 281: 714–9.
16. Shahar E. Evidence-based medicine: a new paradigm or the emperor’s new clothes? J Eval Clin Pract 1999; 4: 277–82.
© 2002 International Anesthesia Research Society