Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Evidence-based Medicine Paradigm: Where are We 20 Years Later? Part 1

  • Shashi S. Seshia (a1) and G. Bryan Young (a2)
Abstract:

The evidence-based medicine (EBM) paradigm, introduced in 1992, has had a major and positive impact on all aspects of health care. However, widespread use has also uncovered some limitations; these are discussed from the perspectives of two clinicians in this, the first of a two part narrative review. For example, there are credible reservations about the validity of hierarchical levels of evidence, a core element of the EBM paradigm. In addition, potential and actual methodological and statistical deficiencies have been identified, not only in many published randomized controlled trials but also in systematic reviews, both rated highly for evidence in EBM classifications. Ethical violations compromise reliability of some data. Clinicians need to be conscious of potential limitations in some of the cornerstones of the EBM paradigm, and to deficiencies in the literature.

Résumé:

Le paradigme de la médecine fondée sur des données probantes (MFDP) introduit en 1992 a eu un impact positif majeur sur tous les aspects des soins de santé. Cependant, son utilisation répandue a également mis au jour certaines limites. Nous discutons de ces limites du point de vue de deux cliniciens dans la première partie de cet examen narratif. Il existe, par exemple, des réserves crédibles concernant la validité des niveaux hiérarchiques de preuves, un élément clé du paradigme de la MFDP. De plus, des lacunes potentielles et réelles dans la méthodologie et l'analyse statistique ont été identifiées, non seulement dans plusieurs essais cliniques randomisés qui ont été publiés, mais également dans les revues systématiques, deux sources de données très prisées pour établir les classifications dans la MFDP. Les manquements à l'éthique compromettent la fiabilité de certaines données. Les cliniciens doivent être conscients des limites potentielles présentes dans certains principes de base du paradigme de la MFDP et des lacunes présentes dans la littérature.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Evidence-based Medicine Paradigm: Where are We 20 Years Later? Part 1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Evidence-based Medicine Paradigm: Where are We 20 Years Later? Part 1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Evidence-based Medicine Paradigm: Where are We 20 Years Later? Part 1
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Neurology, University of Saskatchewan, Royal University Hospital, 108 Hospital Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 0W8, Canada. Email: sseshia@yahoo.ca
References
Hide All
1. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268:2420–5.
2. Straus, SE, Glasziou, P, Richardson, WS, Haynes, RB. Evidence-based Medicine; 4th ed. Toronto: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, 2011.
3. Goldenberg, MJ, Borgerson, K, Bluhm, R. The nature of evidence in evidence-based medicine: guest editors’ introduction. Perspect Biol Med. 2009;52:164–7.
4. Djulbegovic, B, Guyatt, GH, Ashcroft, RE. Epistemologic inquiries in evidence-based medicine. Cancer Control. 2009;16:158–68.
5. Montori, VM, Guyatt, GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine. JAMA. 2008;300:1814–6.
6. Burneo, JG, Demaerschalk, BM, Jenkins, ME, editors. Neurology: An evidence-based approach. New York: Springer; 2012.
7. Wiebe, S, Demaerschalk, B. Evidence based care in the neurosciences. Can J Neurol Sci. 2002;29:115–9.
8. 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.
9. Cochrane Collaboration. [Cited 2012 Aug 27]. Available from: http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews/
10. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford. Oxford, UK. [Cited 2012 Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/
11. CONSORT group. [Cited 2012 Dec 11]. Avaiable from: http://www.consort-statement.org/
12. Davidoff, F, Haynes, B, Sackett, D, Smith, R. Evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1995;310:1085–6.
13. 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.
14. Straus, SE, McAlister, FA. Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms. CMAJ. 2000;163:837–41.
15. 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.1124.
16. Anonymous. The periodic health examination: 2. 1985 update. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Examination. CMAJ. 1986;134:724–7.
17. French, J, Gronseth, G. Lost in a jungle of evidence: we need a compass. Neurology. 2008;71:1634–8.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Feinstein, AR, Horwitz, RI. Problems in the “evidence” of “evidence-based medicine”. Am J Med. 1997;103:529–35.
21. 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.
22. Cohen, AM, Stavri, PZ, Hersh, WR. A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of Evidence-Based Medicine. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73:3543.
23. Rawlins, M. De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet. 2008;372:2152–61.
24. Rosner, AL. Evidence-based medicine: revisiting the pyramid of priorities. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16:42–9.
25. Tonelli, MR. The limits of evidence-based medicine. Respir Care. 2001;46:1435,40; discussion 1440-1.
26. Upshur, RE. Are all evidence-based practices alike? Problems in the ranking of evidence. CMAJ. 2003;169:672–3.
27. Upshur, R, Tracy, CS. Evidence-based medicine: perils and pitfalls. N Z Fam Physician. 2003;30(5):327–30.
28. Concato, J. Observational versus experimental studies: what’s the evidence for a hierarchy? NeuroRx. 2004;1:341–7.
29. Goodin, DS, Reder, AT. Evidence-based medicine: promise and pitfalls. Mult Scler. 2012;18:947–8.
30. Jadad, AR, Enkin, MW. Randomized controlled trials. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing BMJI Books; 2007.
31. Rawlins, MD. De Testimonio: On the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. London, UK: Royal College of Physicians; 2008.
32. Atkins, D, Best, D, Briss, PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.
33. 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.
34. Hill, AB. Reflections on controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 1966;25:107–13.
35. Schwartz, D, Lellouch, J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20:637–48.
36. Cochrane, AL. 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.
37. Horwitz, RI. The dark side of evidence-based medicine. Cleve Clin J Med. 1996;63:320–3.
38. 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.
39. Patsopoulos, NA. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13:217–24.
40. Buchanan, WW, Kean, WF. Evidence based medicine: the median is not the message. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:2371–2.
41. Brigo, F. New anti-epileptic drugs: overcoming the limits of randomised controlled trials. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2011;9:440–3.
42. Glasziou, P, Chalmers, I, Rawlins, M, McCulloch, P. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ. 2007;334:349–51.
43. Wikipedia. The randomized controlled trial. [Cited 2012 Dec 12]. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial
44. 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.
45. Makhinson, M. Biases in the evaluation of psychiatric clinical evidence. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2012;200:7682.
46. 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.
47. Weiss, NS, Koepsell, TD, Psaty, BM. Generalizability of the results of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:133–5.
48. Senn, S, Julious, S. Measurement in clinical trials: a neglected issue for statisticians? Stat Med. 2009;28:3189–209.
49. Gifford, F. Uncertainty about clinical equipoise. Clinical equipoise and the uncertainty principles both require further scrutiny. BMJ. 2001;322:795.
50. 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):99100.
51. 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.
52. Djulbegovic, B, Lacevic, M, Cantor, A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356:635–8.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Heinzl, H, Benner, A, Ittrich, C, Mittlbock, M. Proposals for sample size calculation programs. Methods Inf Med. 2007;46:655–61.
56. van der Tweel, I, Askie, L, Vandermeer, B, et al. Standard 4: determining adequate sample sizes. Pediatrics. 2012; 129 Suppl 3:S13845.
57. Sakpal, TV. Sample size estimation in clinical trial. Perspect Clin Res. 2010;1:67–9.
58. Julious, SA, Campbell, MJ. Tutorial in biostatistics: sample sizes for parallel group clinical trials with binary data. Stat Med. 2012;31:2904–36.
59. Charles, P, Giraudeau, B, Dechartres, A, Baron, G, Ravaud, P. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.
60. Bacchetti, P. Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med. 2010;8:17.
61. Bacchetti, P, Deeks, SG, McCune, JM. Breaking free of sample size dogma to perform innovative translational research. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:87ps24.
62. Hill, AB. Medical ethics and controlled trials. BMJ. 1963;1:1043–9.
63. Hollis, S, Campbell, F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319:670–4.
64. 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.
65. Abraha, I, Montedori, A. Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c2697.
66. 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.
67. McAlister, FA. The “number needed to treat” turns 20-and continues to be used and misused. CMAJ. 2008;179:549–53.
68. Smeeth, L, Haines, A, Ebrahim, S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses-sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ. 1999;318:1548–51.
69. Hutton, JL. 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;146:2730.
70. Julious, SA. Issues with number needed to treat. Stat Med. 2005;24:3233–5.
71. Greenhalgh, T. How to read a paper. Statistics for the non-statistician. II: “Significant” relations and their pitfalls. BMJ. 1997;315:422–5.
72. Goodman, S. A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions. Semin Hematol. 2008;45:135–40.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1283–93.
76. Glasziou, P, Doll, H. Was the study big enough? Two cafe rules. Evid Based Med. 2006;11:6970.
77. Yudkin, JS, Lipska, KJ, Montori, VM. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343:d7995.
78. Aronson, JK. Surrogate end points: studying their benefits, taxonomy, and semantics. BMJ. 2012;344:e750.
79. Colatsky, TJ. Reassessing the validity of surrogate markers of drug efficacy in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2009;10:239–44.
80. 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.
81. Fleming, TR, DeMets, DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–13.
82. Montori, VM, Shah, ND. What have we learnt from the rosiglitazone saga? BMJ. 2011;342:d1354.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Montori, VM, Permanyer-Miralda, G, Ferreira-Gonzalez, I, et al. Validity of composite end points in clinical trials. BMJ. 2005;330:594–6.
89. Sun, X, Briel, M, Busse, JW, et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e1553.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. Guyatt, GH, Briel, M, Glasziou, P, Bassler, D, Montori, VM. Problems of stopping trials early. BMJ. 2012;344:e3863.
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. Tellez-Zenteno, JF, Wiebe, S. Hippocampal stimulation in the treatment of epilepsy. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2011;22:465,75, vi.
97. Andrasik, F, Powers, SW, McGrath, PJ. Methodological considerations in research with special populations: children and adolescents. Headache. 2005;45:520–5.
98. Lewis, DW, Winner, P, Wasiewski, W. The placebo responder rate in children and adolescents. Headache. 2005;45:232–9.
99. 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.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. Croskerry, P. Perspectives on diagnostic failure and patient safety. Healthc Q. 2012;15 Suppl:50-6.
103. Croskerry, P. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad Med. 2009;84:1022–8.
104. Croskerry, P. Context is everything or how could I have been that stupid? Healthc Q. 2009;12 Spec No Patient:e171-6.
105. Croskerry, P, Abbass, AA, Wu, AW. How doctors feel: affective issues in patients’ safety. Lancet. 2008;372:1205–6.
106. Heneghan, C, Glasziou, P, Thompson, M, et al. Diagnostic strategies used in primary care. BMJ. 2009;338:b946.
107. 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.
108. Katelaris, A. What influences clinical decision making? Med J Aust. 2012;197:129.
109. Perera, R, Heneghan, C, Badenoch, D. Statistics toolkit. Oxford, UK: Blackwell publishing; 2008.
110. Feinstein, AR. Misguided efforts and future challenges for research on “diagnostic tests”. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:330–2.
111. Stegenga, J. Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence? Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2011;42:497507.
112. 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.
113. Clark, DA. The end of evidence-based medicine? Inflammopharmacology. 2012;20:187–93.
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. 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.
117. Mutasingwa, DR, Ge, H, Upshur, RE. How applicable are clinical practice guidelines to elderly patients with comorbidities? Can Fam Physician. 2011;57:e25362.
118. 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.
119. Ballantyne, AJ, Rogers, WA. Sex bias in studies selected for clinical guidelines. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011;20:1297–306.
120. Fahy, K, Tracy, SK. Critique of Cochrane systematic review of home-like setting for birth. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2007;5:360–4.
121. Cundiff, DK. A systematic review of Cochrane anticoagulation reviews. Medscape J Med. 2009;11:5.
122. 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.
123. 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.
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. Tharyan, P. Evidence-based medicine: can the evidence be trusted? Indian J Med Ethics. 2011;8:201–7.
127. Tharyan, P. 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.
128. Bonita, RE, Adams, S, Whellan, DJ. Reporting of clinical trials: publication, authorship, and trial registration. Heart Fail Clin. 2011;7:561–7.
129. Mowatt, G, Shirran, L, Grimshaw, JM, et al. Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA. 2002;287:2769–71.
130. 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.
131. Avraham, R. Clinical practice guidelines: the warped incentives in the U. S. healthcare system. Am J Law Med. 2011;37:740.
132. 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.
133. 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.
134. Scott, IA, Guyatt, GH. Clinical practice guidelines: the need for greater transparency in formulating recommendations. Med J Aust. 2011;195:2933.
135. 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.
136. 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.
137. 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.
138. 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.
139. Doshi, P, Jefferson, T, Del Mar, C. The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001201.
140. Moynihan, R. Rosiglitazone, marketing, and medical science. BMJ. 2010;340:c1848.
141. 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.
142. Zarin, DA, Tse, T. Medicine. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials. Science. 2008;319:1340–2.
143. Rhode, DL, Packel, AK. Ethics and Non Profits. [updated summer 2009; cited 2012 Aug 5] Available at: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/ethics_and_nonprofits
144. Booth, A. Evidence-based practice: triumph of style over substance? Health Info Libr J. 2011;28:237–41.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences
  • ISSN: 0317-1671
  • EISSN: 2057-0155
  • URL: /core/journals/canadian-journal-of-neurological-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score