How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine (HOW - How To)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
The best-selling introduction to evidence-based medicine
In a clear and engaging style, How to Read a Paper demystifies evidence-based medicine and explains how to critically appraise published research and also put the findings into practice.
An ideal introduction to evidence-based medicine, How to Read a Paper explains what to look for in different types of papers and how best to evaluate the literature and then implement the findings in an evidence-based, patient-centred way. Helpful checklist summaries of the key points in each chapter provide a useful framework for applying the principles of evidence-based medicine in everyday practice.
This fifth edition has been fully updated with new examples and references to reflect recent developments and current practice. It also includes two new chapters on applying evidence-based medicine with patients and on the common criticisms of evidence-based medicine and responses.
How to Read a Paper is a standard text for medical and nursing schools as well as a friendly guide for everyone wanting to teach or learn the basics of evidence-based medicine.
for a copy of the consent form which patients would be asked to sign. When they assured me that the average 90-year-old would hardly notice the procedure, I smelt a rat and refused to co-operate with their project. At the time, I was naïvely unaware of the seriousness of the offence being planned by these doctors. Doing any research, particularly that which involves invasive procedures, on vulnerable and sick patients without full consideration of ethical issues is both a criminal offence and
6.2). 2 When designing clinical trials, select a patient population, clinical features and trial length which reflect the maximum possible response to the drug. 3 If possible, only compare your product with placebos. If you must compare it with a competitor, make sure the latter is given at sub-therapeutic dose. 4 Include the results of pilot studies in the figures for definitive studies, so it looks like more patients have been randomised than is actually the case. 5 Omit mention of any
systematic reviews (see reference 2) Explicit methods limit bias in identifying and rejecting studies. Conclusions are hence more reliable and accurate. Large amounts of information can be assimilated quickly by health care providers, researchers and policymakers. Delay between research discoveries and implementation of effective diagnostic and therapeutic strategies is reduced (see Chapter 12). Results of different studies can be formally compared to establish generalisability of findings and
colleagues and I searched a total of 15 databases, 9 of which I’d never even heard of when I started the study11). In the search for trials to include in a review, the scrupulous avoidance of linguistic imperialism is a scientific as well as a political imperative. As much weight must be given, for example, to the expressions ‘Eine Placebo-kontrollierte Doppel-blindstudie’ and ‘une étude randomisée a double insu face au placebo’ as to ‘a double-blind, randomised controlled trial’,3 although
2001. 20 Fergusson D, Glass K, Hutton B, Shapiro S. Randomised controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials 2005;2:218–232. 21 Thompson SG. Why and how sources of heterogeneity should be investigated. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publications; 2001. 22 Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of