Search

We are pleased that the publisher of DynaMed clarified his evidence-based methodology in response to our review. We stress again how good reporting is a prerequisite for transparency. This lesson comes from the reporting of research findings but its extension to the development of information sources should be considered.

BackgroundBusy clinicians need easy access to evidence-based information to inform their clinical practice. Publishers and organizations have designed specific tools to meet doctors’ needs at the point of care. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe online point-of-care summaries and evaluate their breadth, content development, and editorial policy against their claims of being “evidence-based.” MethodsWe searched Medline, Google, librarian association websites, and information conference proceedings from January to December 2008. We included English Web-based point-of-care summaries designed to deliver predigested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, periodically updated, evidence-based information to clinicians. Two investigators independently extracted data on the general characteristics and content presentation of summaries. We assessed and ranked point-of-care products according to: (1) coverage (volume) of medical conditions, (2) editorial quality, and (3) evidence-based methodology. We explored how these factors were associated. ResultsWe retrieved 30 eligible summaries. Of these products, 18 met our inclusion criteria and were qualitatively described, and 16 provided sufficient data for quantitative evaluation. The median volume of medical conditions covered was 80.6% (interquartile range, 68.9% - 84.2%) and varied for the different products. Similarly, differences emerged for editorial policy (median 8.0, interquartile range 5.8 - 10.3) and evidence-based methodology scores (median 10.0, interquartile range 1.0 - 12.8) on a 15-point scale. None of these dimensions turned out to be significantly associated with the other dimensions (editorial quality and volume, Spearman rank correlation r = -0.001, P = .99; evidence-based methodology and volume, r = -0.19, P = .48; editorial and evidence-based methodology, r = 0.43, P =.09). ConclusionsPublishers are moving to develop point-of-care summary products. Some of these have better profiles than others, and there is room for improved reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these products.

Abstract Background Since September 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has required that trials be registered in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum dataset, in order to be considered for publication. The objective is to evaluate registries' and individual trial records' compliance with the 2006 version of the WHO minimum data set. Methods A retrospective evaluation of 21 online clinical trial registries (international, national, specialty, pharmaceutical industry and local) from April 2005 to February 2007 and a cross-sectional evaluation of a stratified random sample of 610 trial records from the 21 registries. Results Among 11 registries that provided guidelines for registration, the median compliance with the WHO criteria were 14 out of 20 items (range 6 to 20). In the period April 2005–February 2007, six registries increased their compliance by six data items, on average. None of the local registry websites published guidelines on the trial data items required for registration. Slightly more than half (330/610; 54.1%, 95% CI 50.1% – 58.1%) of trial records completed the contact details criteria while 29.7% (181/610, 95% CI 26.1% – 33.5%) completed the key clinical and methodological data fields. Conclusion While the launch of the WHO minimum data set seemed to positively influence registries with better standardisation of approaches, individual registry entries are largely incomplete. Initiatives to ensure quality assurance of registries and trial data should be encouraged. Peer reviewers and editors should scrutinise clinical trial registration records to ensure consistency with WHO's core content requirements when considering trial-related publications.

Interest in evidence-based medicine (EBM) is growing in Italy, although its impact upon health policies and clinical practice is unclear. Rather than getting health information from unbiased evidence-based sources, doctors [...]

Abstract Background Since September 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has required that trials be registered in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum dataset, in order to be considered for publication. The objective is to evaluate registries' and individual trial records' compliance with the 2006 version of the WHO minimum data set. Methods A retrospective evaluation of 21 online clinical trial registries (international, national, specialty, pharmaceutical industry and local) from April 2005 to February 2007 and a cross-sectional evaluation of a stratified random sample of 610 trial records from the 21 registries. Results Among 11 registries that provided guidelines for registration, the median compliance with the WHO criteria were 14 out of 20 items (range 6 to 20). In the period April 2005–February 2007, six registries increased their compliance by six data items, on average. None of the local registry websites published guidelines on the trial data items required for registration. Slightly more than half (330/610; 54.1%, 95% CI 50.1% – 58.1%) of trial records completed the contact details criteria while 29.7% (181/610, 95% CI 26.1% – 33.5%) completed the key clinical and methodological data fields. Conclusion While the launch of the WHO minimum data set seemed to positively influence registries with better standardisation of approaches, individual registry entries are largely incomplete. Initiatives to ensure quality assurance of registries and trial data should be encouraged. Peer reviewers and editors should scrutinise clinical trial registration records to ensure consistency with WHO's core content requirements when considering trial-related publications.

Abstract Background In an effort to ensure that all physicians have access to valid and reliable evidence on drug effectiveness, the Italian Drug Agency sponsored a free-access e-learning system, based on Clinical Evidence, called ECCE. Doctors have access to an electronic version and related clinical vignettes. Correct answers to the interactive vignettes provide Continuing Medical Education credits. The aims of this trial are to establish whether the e-learning program (ECCE) increases physicians' basic knowledge about common clinical scenarios, and whether ECCE is superior to the passive diffusion of information through the printed version of Clinical Evidence. Design All Italian doctors naïve to ECCE will be randomised to three groups. Group one will have access to ECCE for Clinical Evidence chapters and vignettes lot A and will provide control data for Clinical Evidence chapters and vignettes lot B; group two vice versa; group three will receive the concise printed version of Clinical Evidence. There are in fact two designs: a before and after pragmatic trial utilising a two by two incomplete block design (group one versus group two) and a classical design (group one and two versus group three). The primary outcome will be the retention of Clinical Evidence contents assessed from the scores for clinical vignettes selected from ECCE at least six months after the intervention. To avoid test-retest effects, we will randomly select vignettes out of lot A and lot B, avoiding repetitions. In order to preserve the comparability of lots, we will select vignettes with similar, optimal psychometric characteristics. Trial registration ISRCTN27453314

This article is about current challenges to evidence-based medicine (EMB) in Italy. The authors, who share a 20-year commitment to the field of clinical research, discuss what they define as a phase of "stagnation" in practicing and teaching methods and research tactics, both in clinical and academic settings. Early success of EBM cultural movement was not persistent. The authors reason about how the teaching of EBM has remained a niche, concerning few professionals compared to the needs of the country. The authors identify some reasons that might have led to inconsistent attention to research methodology and address ways to strengthen the contribution of academic medicine to clinical research.

Objective: To evaluate the ability of international point of care information summaries to update evidence relevant to medical practice., Design: Prospective cohort bibliometric analysis., Setting: Top five point of care information summaries (Clinical Evidence, EBMGuidelines, eMedicine, Dynamed, UpToDate) ranked for coverage of medical conditions, editorial quality, and evidence based methodology., Main Outcome Measures: From June 2009 to May 2010 we measured the incidence of research findings relating to potentially eligible newsworthy evidence. As samples, we chose systematic reviews rated as relevant by international research networks (such as, Evidence-Based Medicine, ACP Journal Club, and the Cochrane Collaboration). Every month we assessed whether each sampled review was cited in at least one chapter of the five summaries. The cumulative updating rate was analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Results From April to December 2009, 128 reviews were retrieved; 53% (68) from the literature surveillance journals and 47% (60) from the Cochrane Library. At nine months, Dynamed had cited 87% of the sampled reviews, while the other summaries had cited less than 50%. The updating speed of Dynamed clearly led the others. For instance, the hazard ratios for citations in EBM Guidelines and Clinical Evidence versus the top performer were 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.29) and 0.03 (0.01 to 0.05). Conclusions Point of care information summaries include evidence relevant to practice at different speeds. A qualitative analysis of updating mechanisms is needed to determine whether greater speed corresponds to more appropriate incorporation of new information.

Objective: To assess the reporting of monitoring recommendations in guidelines on the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease., Data Sources: Medline, Trip database, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and databases containing guidelines published from January 2002 to February 2010. Data selection Three major risk factors for cardiovascular disease: cholesterol level, smoking, and hypertension. The primary outcome was the frequency with which the guidelines dealt with monitoring of risk factors. Secondary outcomes were completeness of monitoring recommendations, defined by the presence of what to monitor, when to monitor, what to do if the targets or variables were not met, and the reported level or strength of the evidence., Results: 117 guidelines were identified, 84 (72%) of which contained a section on lipids. Of those guidelines with a section on lipids, 53% (n = 44) provided no information or specific recommendations on what to monitor, 51% (n = 43) provided no information on when to monitor, and 64% (n = 54) provided no guidance on what to do if the target was out of range. Guidelines for hypertension (n = 79) and smoking (n = 65) were little better, with 63% (n = 50) and 54% (n = 35), respectively, providing no recommendation for what to monitor. The number of guidelines that explicitly referenced the level of evidence for monitoring was low, with most of the recommendations based on weak levels of evidence., Conclusion: Many guidelines for cardiovascular disease do not report clearly what to monitor and what to do if a change is detected. If no evidence is available to support a specific monitoring schedule, this should be explicit in the guideline, with a description of the new research that would fill the gap.

In this paper we try to define the future goals of the clinical research, with particular reference to methodological and policy issues. There is an increasing tension between the real drivers of clinical research and its scientific and ethical aims. To consumers the goal is to strengthen the relevance and usefulness of clinical research. This is possible only if consumers are empowered and actively involved. For the health care systems it is mandatory to re-engineer the process, enforcing national and international legislation. This should help to fill the research-clinical practice gap and to balance the research agenda, better reflecting health priorities. Finally the scientific community should reflect on its own conflicts of interests and analyse the causes of the ethical divide between the needs and the market. Scientists too often seem to loose sight of the original cumulative nature of research and of the idea of research as a collective good. More non-commercial research is needed, integrated with the health care systems, to support a transparent, more realistic and valid information useful for patient care, scientific information.