Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268:2420–5.
Straus, SE, Glasziou, P, Richardson, WS, Haynes, RB.
Evidence-based Medicine; 4th ed. Toronto: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, 2011.
Goldenberg, MJ, Borgerson, K, Bluhm, R.
The nature of evidence in evidence-based medicine: guest editors’ introduction. Perspect Biol Med. 2009;52:164–7.
Djulbegovic, B, Guyatt, GH, Ashcroft, RE.
Epistemologic inquiries in evidence-based medicine. Cancer Control. 2009;16:158–68.
Montori, VM, Guyatt, GH.
Progress in evidence-based medicine. JAMA. 2008;300:1814–6.
Burneo, JG, Demaerschalk, BM, Jenkins, ME, editors. Neurology: An evidence-based approach. New York: Springer; 2012.
Wiebe, S, Demaerschalk, B.
Evidence based care in the neurosciences. Can J Neurol Sci. 2002;29:115–9.
Gronseth, G, French, J.
Practice parameters and technology assessments: what they are, what they are not, and why you should care. Neurology. 2008;71:1639–43.
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford. Oxford, UK. [Cited 2012 Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/
Davidoff, F, Haynes, B, Sackett, D, Smith, R.
Evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1995;310:1085–6.
Sackett, DL, Rosenberg, WM, Gray, JA, Haynes, RB, Richardson, WS.
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.
Straus, SE, McAlister, FA.
Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms. CMAJ. 2000;163:837–41.
Elamin, MB, Montori, VM.
The hierarchy of evidence: From unsystematic clinical observations to systematic reviews. Chapter 2. In: Burneo, JG, Demaerschalk, BM, Jenkins, ME, editors. Neurology: An evidence-based approach. New York: Springer; 2012:p.11–24.
Anonymous. The periodic health examination: 2. 1985 update. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Examination. CMAJ. 1986;134:724–7.
French, J, Gronseth, G.
Lost in a jungle of evidence: we need a compass. Neurology. 2008;71:1634–8.
Lee, SK, Singhal, N, Aziz, K, Cronin, CM.
The EPIQ evidence reviews - practical tools for an integrated approach to knowledge translation. Paediatr Child Health. 2011;16:629–30.
Atkins, D, Eccles, M, Flottorp, S, et al.
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:38.
Feinstein, AR, Horwitz, RI.
Problems in the “evidence” of “evidence-based medicine”. Am J Med. 1997;103:529–35.
Bluhm, R, Borgerson, K.
Evidence-based Medicine. In: Gifford, F, editor. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Volume 16: Philosophy of Medicine. Amsterdam: Elsevier, BV; 2011: p. 203–38.
Cohen, AM, Stavri, PZ, Hersh, WR.
A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of Evidence-Based Medicine. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73:35–43.
De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet. 2008;372:2152–61.
Evidence-based medicine: revisiting the pyramid of priorities. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16:42–9.
The limits of evidence-based medicine. Respir Care. 2001;46:1435,40; discussion 1440-1.
Are all evidence-based practices alike? Problems in the ranking of evidence. CMAJ. 2003;169:672–3.
Upshur, R, Tracy, CS.
Evidence-based medicine: perils and pitfalls. N Z Fam Physician. 2003;30(5):327–30.
Observational versus experimental studies: what’s the evidence for a hierarchy?
Goodin, DS, Reder, AT.
Evidence-based medicine: promise and pitfalls. Mult Scler. 2012;18:947–8.
Jadad, AR, Enkin, MW.
Randomized controlled trials. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing BMJI Books; 2007.
De Testimonio: On the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. London, UK: Royal College of Physicians; 2008.
Atkins, D, Best, D, Briss, PA, et al.
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, et al.
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.
Reflections on controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 1966;25:107–13.
Schwartz, D, Lellouch, J.
Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20:637–48.
Archie Cochrane in his own words. Selections arranged from his 1972 introduction to “Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on the Health Services” 1972. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:428–33.
The dark side of evidence-based medicine. Cleve Clin J Med. 1996;63:320–3.
Hartling, L, McAlister, FA, Rowe, BH, Ezekowitz, J, Friesen, C, Klassen, TP.
Challenges in systematic reviews of therapeutic devices and procedures. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1100–11.
A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13:217–24.
Buchanan, WW, Kean, WF.
Evidence based medicine: the median is not the message. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:2371–2.
New anti-epileptic drugs: overcoming the limits of randomised controlled trials. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2011;9:440–3.
Glasziou, P, Chalmers, I, Rawlins, M, McCulloch, P.
When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ. 2007;334:349–51.
Schulz, KF, Altman, DG, Moher, D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726–32.
Biases in the evaluation of psychiatric clinical evidence. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2012;200:76–82.
Zwarenstein, M, Oxman, A.
Pragmatic Trials in Health Care Systems (PRACTIHC). Why are so few randomized trials useful, and what can we do about it?
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1125–6.
Weiss, NS, Koepsell, TD, Psaty, BM.
Generalizability of the results of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:133–5.
Senn, S, Julious, S.
Measurement in clinical trials: a neglected issue for statisticians?
Stat Med. 2009;28:3189–209.
Uncertainty about clinical equipoise. Clinical equipoise and the uncertainty principles both require further scrutiny. BMJ. 2001;322:795.
Oricha, BS, Yauri, MB.
Uncertainty principle versus clincal equipoise in clinical trials in Sub-Saharan Africa: Are they really tenable?
Ann African Med. 2003;2(2):99–100.
Weijer, C, Shapiro, SH, Cranley Glass, K.
For and against: clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2000;321:756–8.
Djulbegovic, B, Lacevic, M, Cantor, A, et al.
The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356:635–8.
Rich, W, Finer, NN, Gantz, MG, et al.
Enrollment of extremely low birth weight infants in a clinical research study may not be representative. Pediatrics. 2012;129:480–4.
Biau, DJ, Kerneis, S, Porcher, R.
Statistics in brief: the importance of sample size in the planning and interpretation of medical research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2282–8.
Heinzl, H, Benner, A, Ittrich, C, Mittlbock, M.
Proposals for sample size calculation programs. Methods Inf Med. 2007;46:655–61.
van der Tweel, I, Askie, L, Vandermeer, B, et al.
Standard 4: determining adequate sample sizes. Pediatrics. 2012; 129 Suppl 3:S138–45.
Sample size estimation in clinical trial. Perspect Clin Res. 2010;1:67–9.
Julious, SA, Campbell, MJ.
Tutorial in biostatistics: sample sizes for parallel group clinical trials with binary data. Stat Med. 2012;31:2904–36.
Charles, P, Giraudeau, B, Dechartres, A, Baron, G, Ravaud, P.
Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.
Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med. 2010;8:17.
Bacchetti, P, Deeks, SG, McCune, JM.
Breaking free of sample size dogma to perform innovative translational research. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:87ps24.
Medical ethics and controlled trials. BMJ. 1963;1:1043–9.
Hollis, S, Campbell, F.
What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319:670–4.
Gravel, J, Opatrny, L, Shapiro, S.
The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: are authors saying what they do and doing what they say?
Clin Trials. 2007;4:350–6.
Abraha, I, Montedori, A.
Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c2697.
Kruse, RL, Alper, BS, Reust, C, Stevermer, JJ, Shannon, S, Williams, RH.
Intention-to-treat analysis: Who is in? Who is out?
J Fam Pract. 2002;51:969–71.
The “number needed to treat” turns 20-and continues to be used and misused. CMAJ. 2008;179:549–53.
Smeeth, L, Haines, A, Ebrahim, S.
Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses-sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ. 1999;318:1548–51.
Number needed to treat and number needed to harm are not the best way to report and assess the results of randomised clinical trials. Br J Haematol. 2009;146:27–30.
Issues with number needed to treat. Stat Med. 2005;24:3233–5.
How to read a paper. Statistics for the non-statistician. II: “Significant” relations and their pitfalls. BMJ. 1997;315:422–5.
A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions. Semin Hematol. 2008;45:135–40.
Bhandari, M, Montori, VM, Schemitsch, EH.
The undue influence of significant p-values on the perceived importance of study results. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:291–5.
Guyatt, G, Jaeschke, R, Heddle, N, Cook, D, Shannon, H, Walter, S.
Basic statistics for clinicians: 2. Interpreting study results: confidence intervals. CMAJ. 1995;152:169–73.
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al.
GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1283–93.
Glasziou, P, Doll, H.
Was the study big enough? Two cafe rules. Evid Based Med. 2006;11:69–70.
Yudkin, JS, Lipska, KJ, Montori, VM.
The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343:d7995.
Surrogate end points: studying their benefits, taxonomy, and semantics. BMJ. 2012;344:e750.
Reassessing the validity of surrogate markers of drug efficacy in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2009;10:239–44.
Psaty, BM, Weiss, NS, Furberg, CD, et al.
Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 1999;282:786–90.
Fleming, TR, DeMets, DL.
Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?
Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–13.
Montori, VM, Shah, ND.
What have we learnt from the rosiglitazone saga?
Cordoba, G, Schwartz, L, Woloshin, S, Bae, H, Gotzsche, PC.
Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c3920.
Ferreira-Gonzalez, I, Busse, JW, Heels-Ansdell, D, et al.
Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;334:786.
Ferreira-Gonzalez, I, Permanyer-Miralda, G, Busse, JW, et al.
Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:651,7; discussion 658-62.
Ferreira-Gonzalez, I, Permanyer-Miralda, G, Busse, JW, et al.
Composite outcomes can distort the nature and magnitude of treatment benefits in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:566–7.
Montori, VM, Busse, JW, Permanyer-Miralda, G, Ferreira, I, Guyatt, GH.
How should clinicians interpret results reflecting the effect of an intervention on composite endpoints: should I dump this lump?
ACP J Club. 2005;143:A8.
Montori, VM, Permanyer-Miralda, G, Ferreira-Gonzalez, I, et al.
Validity of composite end points in clinical trials. BMJ. 2005;330:594–6.
Sun, X, Briel, M, Busse, JW, et al.
Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e1553.
Wang, R, Lagakos, SW, Ware, JH, Hunter, DJ, Drazen, JM.
Statistics in medicine-reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2189–94.
Sacks, FM, Pfeffer, MA, Moye, LA, et al.
The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1001–9.
Guyatt, GH, Briel, M, Glasziou, P, Bassler, D, Montori, VM.
Problems of stopping trials early. BMJ. 2012;344:e3863.
Bassler, D, Ferreira-Gonzalez, I, Briel, M, et al.
Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:869–73.
Bassler, D, Montori, VM, Briel, M, et al.
Reflections on meta-analyses involving trials stopped early for benefit: Is there a problem and if so, what is it?
Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22:159–68.
Cady, RK, Lipton, RB, Hall, C, Stewart, WF, O’Quinn, S, Gutterman, D.
Treatment of mild headache in disabled migraine sufferers: results of the Spectrum Study. Headache. 2000;40:792–7.
Tellez-Zenteno, JF, Wiebe, S.
Hippocampal stimulation in the treatment of epilepsy. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2011;22:465,75, vi.
Andrasik, F, Powers, SW, McGrath, PJ.
Methodological considerations in research with special populations: children and adolescents. Headache. 2005;45:520–5.
Lewis, DW, Winner, P, Wasiewski, W.
The placebo responder rate in children and adolescents. Headache. 2005;45:232–9.
Klassen, TP, Hartling, L, Craig, JC, Offringa, M.
Children are not just small adults: the urgent need for high-quality trial evidence in children. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e172.
Klassen, TP, Hartling, L, Hamm, M, van der Lee, JH, Ursum, J, Offringa, M.
StaR Child Health: an initiative for RCTs in children. Lancet. 2009;374:1310–2.
Hartling, L, Wittmeier, KD, Caldwell, PH, et al.
StaR Child Health: developing evidence-based guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90:727–31.
Perspectives on diagnostic failure and patient safety. Healthc Q. 2012;15 Suppl:50-6.
A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad Med. 2009;84:1022–8.
Context is everything or how could I have been that stupid?
Healthc Q. 2009;12 Spec No Patient:e171-6.
Croskerry, P, Abbass, AA, Wu, AW.
How doctors feel: affective issues in patients’ safety. Lancet. 2008;372:1205–6.
Heneghan, C, Glasziou, P, Thompson, M, et al.
Diagnostic strategies used in primary care. BMJ. 2009;338:b946.
Cruz, MF, Edwards, J, Dinh, MM, Barnes, EH.
The effect of clinical history on accuracy of electrocardiograph interpretation among doctors working in emergency departments. Med J Aust. 2012;197:161–5.
What influences clinical decision making?
Med J Aust. 2012;197:129.
Perera, R, Heneghan, C, Badenoch, D.
Statistics toolkit. Oxford, UK: Blackwell publishing; 2008.
Misguided efforts and future challenges for research on “diagnostic tests”. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:330–2.
Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence?
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2011;42:497–507.
Coyne, JC, Thombs, BD, Hagedoorn, M.
Ain’t necessarily so: review and critique of recent meta-analyses of behavioral medicine interventions in health psychology. Health Psychol. 2010;29:107–16.
The end of evidence-based medicine?
Rutjes, AW, Reitsma, JB, Di Nisio, M, Smidt, N, van Rijn, JC, Bossuyt, PM.
Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ. 2006;174:469–76.
Shojania, KG, Sampson, M, Ansari, MT, et al.
Technical review number 16: Updating systematic reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 07-0087. Rockville (MD): U. S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2007.
Hartling, L, Bond, K, Santaguida, PL, Viswanathan, M, Dryden, DM.
Testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed moderate reliability and low accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:861–71.
Mutasingwa, DR, Ge, H, Upshur, RE.
How applicable are clinical practice guidelines to elderly patients with comorbidities?
Can Fam Physician. 2011;57:e253–62.
Lugtenberg, M, Burgers, JS, Clancy, C, Westert, GP, Schneider, EC.
Current guidelines have limited applicability to patients with comorbid conditions: a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines. PLoS One. 2011;6:e25987.
Ballantyne, AJ, Rogers, WA.
Sex bias in studies selected for clinical guidelines. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011;20:1297–306.
Fahy, K, Tracy, SK.
Critique of Cochrane systematic review of home-like setting for birth. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2007;5:360–4.
A systematic review of Cochrane anticoagulation reviews. Medscape J Med. 2009;11:5.
Bow, S, Klassen, J, Chisholm, A, et al.
A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:34.
Roseman, M, Milette, K, Bero, LA, et al.
Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA. 2011;305:1008–17.
Roseman, M, Turner, EH, Lexchin, J, Coyne, JC, Bero, LA, Thombs, BD.
Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2012;345:e5155.
Hartling, L, Hamm, M, Milne, A, et al.
Validity and inter-rater reliability testing of quality assessment instruments. Rockville (MD): Agency for health care research and policy, US department of health and human services; 2012.
Evidence-based medicine: can the evidence be trusted?
Indian J Med Ethics. 2011;8:201–7.
Criminals in the citadel and deceit all along the watchtower: Irresponsibility, fraud, and complicity in the search for scientific truth. Mens Sana Monogr. 2012;10:158–80.
Bonita, RE, Adams, S, Whellan, DJ.
Reporting of clinical trials: publication, authorship, and trial registration. Heart Fail Clin. 2011;7:561–7.
Mowatt, G, Shirran, L, Grimshaw, JM, et al.
Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA. 2002;287:2769–71.
Wislar, JS, Flanagin, A, Fontanarosa, PB, Deangelis, CD.
Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2011;343:d6128.
Clinical practice guidelines: the warped incentives in the U. S. healthcare system. Am J Law Med. 2011;37:7–40.
Guyatt, G, Akl, EA, Hirsh, J, et al.
The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:738–41.
Neuman, J, Korenstein, D, Ross, JS, Keyhani, S.
Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2011;343:d5621.
Scott, IA, Guyatt, GH.
Clinical practice guidelines: the need for greater transparency in formulating recommendations. Med J Aust. 2011;195:29–33.
Norris, SL, Holmer, HK, Burda, BU, Ogden, LA, Fu, R.
Conflict of interest policies for organizations producing a large number of clinical practice guidelines. PLoS One. 2012;7:e37413.
Bailey, CS, Fehlings, MG, Rampersaud, YR, Hall, H, Wai, EK, Fisher, CG.
Industry and evidence-based medicine: Believable or conflicted? A systematic review of the surgical literature. Can J Surg. 2011;54:321–6.
Lundh, A, Barbateskovic, M, Hrobjartsson, A, Gotzsche, PC.
Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - cohort study. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000354.
Upshur, R, Buetow, S, Loughlin, M, Miles, A.
Can academic and clinical journals be in financial conflict of interest situations? The case of evidence-based incorporated. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12:405–9.
Doshi, P, Jefferson, T, Del Mar, C.
The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001201.
Rosiglitazone, marketing, and medical science. BMJ. 2010;340:c1848.
Wang, AT, McCoy, CP, Murad, MH, Montori, VM.
Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c1344.
Zarin, DA, Tse, T.
Medicine. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials. Science. 2008;319:1340–2.
Evidence-based practice: triumph of style over substance?
Health Info Libr J. 2011;28:237–41.