Searching for evidence in neonatology
- PMID: 37151193
- DOI: 10.1111/apa.16815
Searching for evidence in neonatology
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine has changed clinical practice by incorporating data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). While some biases in RCTs are well recognised, we discuss some less acknowledged. Selection bias may arise in the consent stage. Industry-funded studies more often report a positive outcome. Post-hoc changes of outcome measures and other mis-reporting lowers the reliability of outcome data. Finally, even the GRADE system retains subjectivity. CONCLUSION: Moving from "intuition" into "evidence-based" medicine involves grappling with several pitfalls. These pose challenges for authors, editors, reviewers, and readers. All require vigilance before drawing conclusions from presented data.
Keywords: evidence-based medicine; industry-funded; outcome switching; randomised controlled trials; selection bias.
© 2023 The Authors. Acta Paediatrica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation Acta Paediatrica.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1986;89(2 Suppl):2S-3S.
-
- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1049-1051.
-
- Baggini J, Fosl PS. The philosopher's toolkit. A compendium of philosophical concepts and methods. Blackwell Publishing; 2003:131-132.
-
- Jureidini J, McHenry LB. The illusion of evidence based medicine. BMJ. 2022;376:o702.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources