'evidence-based medicine'

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/051108.html

Of around 2500 treatments so far reviewed by the journal's distinguished
team of advisors, peer reviewers, experts, information specialists and
statisticians, only 13 percent have been found definitely beneficial. A
further 23 percent are rated as likely to be beneficial; 8 percent can be
classified as a trade off between benefits and harms; 6 percent as clearly
unlikely to be beneficial; 4 percent are likely to be ineffective or
harmful, and a whopping 46 percent - almost half of all treatments
reviewed - are rated as being of unknown effectiveness.


Reproduced by kind permission of BMJ Clinical Evidence
If you cannot view the above file, please click or go to:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/image...inicalevid.gif


As the journal acknowledges, these figures suggest that most treatment
decisions rest not on solid evidence obtained through properly conducted
clinical trials, but on the individual preferences of clinicians,
unsupported in the majority of cases by any concrete evidence of benefit.

So, given that very few of conventional medicine's standard treatments have
been demonstrated to have any clear benefit whatever - and conversely, that
a substantial proportion have been shown to be potentially harmful - it is
somewhat ironic to see the term 'evidence-based medicine' used as a war cry
by those who are virulently opposed to CAM.

In message <JY2dnSW6wpwNqrTVRVnyvwA@bt.com>, JOHN wrote:

> Of around 2500 treatments so far reviewed by the journal's distinguished
> team of advisors, peer reviewers, experts, information specialists and
> statisticians, only 13 percent have been found definitely beneficial. A
> further 23 percent are rated as likely to be beneficial; 8 percent can be
> classified as a trade off between benefits and harms; 6 percent as clearly
> unlikely to be beneficial; 4 percent are likely to be ineffective or
> harmful, and a whopping 46 percent - almost half of all treatments
> reviewed - are rated as being of unknown effectiveness.

The subject appears to be the degree to which routine practice
is supported by randomized clinical trials, ideally double-blinded
(there is no exact citation in the original.)

Which group does fracture reduction fall into?
Which group does intravenous fluid replacement fall into?
Which group does oral rehydration for diarrheal disease fall into?
It's rather a long list. A reference to the original review would
clarify matters.

--
| Shit happens. Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+