I really liked learning about Evidence-based Medicine because I had never heard of it before. It was about the use of statistics and the latest research journal publications on populations to inform the clinician’s decisions about individuals. At first, I thought this is what doctors already do, but it turns out that the latest research publications are low on the list of the knowledge sources doctors consult when they encounter a difficult diagnosis. Instead, most doctors rely on i) narrative-based medicine of clinical anecdotes or illness scripts derived from their personal collection of medical experiences or other doctor’s experiences, ii) press-cutting interesting articles from paper versions of medical weeklies, iii) published guidelines or consensus statements by experts who held a conference and are possibly compromised by the pharmaceutical company who sponsored their stay, iv) the advice of their colleagues, v) old textbooks, vi) hunches informed by long experience, and vii) an unsystematic search on Google or PubMed.
Evidence-based medicine is very good to consider because studies show that clinicians often have low level of agreement on diagnoses. EBM can ensure diagnoses are standardized. Furthermore, it provides a way for doctors to take advantage of the rich research resources available in providing the most accurate diagnosis and treatment for their patient. This allows them to judge medical sources according to a ‘hierarchy of evidence’ wherein well-designed randomised controlled trials are most trustworthy, followed by systematic reviews, observational studies like case-control studies and cohort studies, and case studies, bench studies, and ‘expert opinion’ ranked last in trustworthiness. Several nice recommended sources for trustworthy compilations of medical news and information include the Conchrane Reviews, PubMed/ MedLine, Clinical Evidence, DynaMed, ACP Pier, TRIP Database, Global infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON), Psychiatry Online, and CardioSource.
I really liked learning about Evidence-Based Medicine, however I’m worried it increases the strain on doctors and would only be practical in an ideal world. It involves spending a lot of time reading primary research papers, surveying the methodologies critically to see if the statistics were done right, and querying the right specific research to fit a patient’s age, ethnicity, past history, and other personal considerations. The doctor will have to appraise each paper’s hypothesis, sample size, study design, control, statistical analysis, conflict of interest, and conclusions to see if they fit the patient being diagnosed. While this seem unrealistic, the truth is pharmaceutical companies can take of Evidence-Based Medicine through research publications that make a mockery of statistics, such as clinical trials and patient population that reflect maximum possible response to the drug, comparisons but only with placebos, using only pilot studies instead of randomised studies, omission of fatalities or adverse drug reactions, misleading graphics such as logarithmic graphs that are portrayed as linear, and hints that their work is ‘better’ without specifying who it is ‘better than’. Without close reading of such publications, doctors with limited time might only read conclusions and commit them to memory, passing on faulty information. This is a real problem because pharma companies have huge power asymmetry.
This involves a lot of time, and appetite for novel solutions, that could be resisted by doctors’ other multiple pressures, such as cost realities, time constraints, and the potential for malpractice litigation if the novel treatment doesn’t work like traditional ones. Because of these constraints, imposition of Evidence-based Medicine can just become formalisation and ossification of guidelines and computerised- decision programmes, reducing the ability of the practitioner to customise or personalize care, and stigmatizing the patient’s individual perspective. There’s also the possibility that imposition of EBM would lead ‘bad statistics’ practices to fester—that is, quoting a lot of numbers and odds ratios to silence medical arguments, even if the statistics is bad or inapplicable.
In conclusion, I found EBM ideal but maybe with possible pitfalls to iron out. I am happy I learned about such an interesting topic.