A great little article on the shortcomings of evidence-based medicine

[cinephile]

This article sums up what I've known about evidence-based medicine for a while: it sounds great on paper, but when you factor in human nature (in this case, a slavish devotion to ideology over the reality of what the studies are saying), it's not anywhere near as impressive as it seems. It's just like communism or laissez-faire economics: sounds great on paper, but the planners always forget to factor in the dark-side and all-out pig-headed stupidity of human nature. We make this same mistake over and over and over.

 

In fact, as one doctor recently said about evidence based medicine, "if you really honor it and understand it, it basically means 'don't take meds.' That's an oversimplification, but such a statement does have some truth to it." But, of course, how many doctors (psychiatrists!) would be able to take that to heart? Read on...

 

Evidence-based care

[Punarbhava]

This article sums up what I've known about evidence-based medicine for a while: it sounds great on paper, but when you factor in human nature (in this case, a slavish devotion to ideology over the reality of what the studies are saying), it's not anywhere near as impressive as it seems. It's just like communism or laissez-faire economics: sounds great on paper, but the planners always forget to factor in the dark-side and all-out pig-headed stupidity of human nature. We make this same mistake over and over and over.

 

In fact, as one doctor recently said about evidence based medicine, That's an oversimplification, but such a statement does have some truth to it." But, of course, how many doctors (psychiatrists!) would be able to take that to heart? Read on...

 

Evidence-based care

 

Cine........

 

thanks for this post!

 

 

"if you really honor it and understand it, it basically means 'don't take meds.'

 

 

I've been researching various drugs, medical treatment modalities and surgical inventions for several years now and basically, the bold text statement is spot on.

 

 

I couldn't agree more with the article you posted.

 

 

Pun

[Altostrata]

For those who may not have access to the NY Times:

 

Believing in Treatments That Don’t Work

By TARA PARKER-POPE April 2, 2009

 

As Washington debates health care reform, emergency room physician Dr. David H. Newman explores how medical ideology often gets in the way of evidence-based medicine.

 

By David H. Newman, M.D.

 

In the early throes of a heart attack, caused by an abruptly clotted artery, the stunned heart often beats quickly and forcefully. For decades doctors have administered “beta-blockers” as a remedy, to reduce consumption of limited oxygen supplies by calming and slowing the straining heart. Giving these drugs in the early stages of a heart attack represents elegant medical ideology.

 

But it doesn’t work.

 

Studies show that the early administration of beta-blockers to heart attack victims does not save lives, and occasionally causes dangerous heart failure. While two studies support the use of beta-blockers after heart attack, there are 26 studies that found no survival benefit to administering beta-blockers early on. Moreover, in 2005, the largest, best study of the drugs showed that beta-blockers in the vulnerable, early hours of heart attacks did not save lives, but did cause a definite increase in heart failure.

 

Remarkably, the medical community has continued to strongly recommend immediate beta-blocker treatment. Why? Because according to the theory of the straining heart, the treatment makes sense. It should work, even though it doesn’t. Ideology trumps evidence.

 

The practice of medicine contains countless examples of elegant medical theories that belie the best available evidence.

 

....

- Patients with ear infections are more likely to be harmed by antibiotics than helped. While the pills may cause a small decrease in symptoms (for which ear drops work better), the infections typically recede within days regardless of treatment. The same is true for bronchitis, sinusitis, and sore throats. Unnecessary antibiotics are still given to more than one in seven Americans each year for these conditions alone, at a cost of more than $2 billion and tens of thousands of serious adverse medication effects requiring treatment.

 

- Back surgeries to relieve pain are, in the majority of cases, no better than nonsurgical treatment. Yet doctors perform 600,000 of these surgeries each year, at a cost of over $20 billion.

 

- More than a half million Americans per year undergo arthroscopic surgery to correct osteoarthritis of the knee, at a cost of $3 billion. Despite this, studies show the surgery to be no better than sham knee surgery, in which surgeons “pretend” to do surgery while the patient is under light anesthesia. It is also no better than much cheaper, and much less invasive, physical therapy.

 

Treatment based on ideology is alluring. .... But the uncomfortable truth is that many expensive, invasive interventions are of little or no benefit and cause potentially uncomfortable, costly, and dangerous side effects and complications.

 

The critical question that looms for health care reform is whether patients, doctors and experts are prepared to set aside ideology in the face of data. Can we abide by the evidence when it tells us that antibiotics don’t clear ear infections or help strep throats? Can we stop asking for, and writing, these prescriptions? Can we stop performing, and asking for, knee and back surgeries? Can we handle what the evidence reveals? Are we ready for the truth?

 

The administration’s plan for reform includes identifying health care measures that work, and those that don’t. To place evidence above ideology, researchers and analysts must be trained in critical analysis, have no conflicts of interest and be a diverse group.

 

Perhaps most importantly, we as doctors and patients must be open to evidence. Pills and surgery are potent symbols of healing power, but our faith in these symbols has often blinded us to truths. Somewhere along the line, theory trumped reality. Administering a medicine or performing a surgery became more important than its effect.

 

During the first week of 2009, in what may be a hopeful sign, hospital administrators around the country received a short, unceremonious e-mail from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The e-mail explained that, due to recent evidence, immediate beta-blocker treatment will be retired as a government indicator of quality care, beginning April 1, 2009. After years of advocacy that cemented immediate beta-blockers in the treatment protocols of virtually every hospital in the country, the agency has demonstrated that minds can be changed.

 

The much more important question for health care reform is, can ours?

 

Dr. Newman is author of “Hippocrates Shadow: Secrets From the House of Medicine.”