Editorial
Show Me the Evidence: Now What Do I Do with It?
Abstract
The process of evidence-based medicine (EBM) “involves tracking down the best external evidence with which to answer our clinical questions.”1 The next question that comes up is how to appraise this evidence. The busy clinician is inundated with information provided in journal articles, CME offered by professional organizations, industry-sponsored lectures, and practice guidelines. EBM philosophy demands that we make sure that the clinical study under review is relevant to the patient for whom we want to apply the results. In addition to assessing the generalizability of the study (are the study subjects similar to my patient?), the availability of the intervention (is it on formulary?), and its clinical significance (what is the number needed to treat (NNT) to see a difference?), the careful clinician will need to be aware of common biases and confounds that exist in clinical studies. The paper by Hsu et al2 in this issue outlines the pitfalls encountered when interpreting evidence.This content is limited to qualifying members.
Existing members, please login first
If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.
Purchase only this article ($25)
Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.
Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)
Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.
Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)
Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.