A wonderful look at the recent controversy over mammography for women in the 40-50 age range is in the Feb 19 issue of Science (remember myVPN connection to UBC network). A great discussion of the intersection of evidence with the wonderful spectrum of humanity.
Archive for the ‘EBM’ Category
A perfect way to while away a boring interlude in 513 …
Posted by rbrands on January 16, 2010
Just a reminder that Chancewiki has lots of clinical epidemiology stuff. Have you hit a boring patch of 513? Got a computer in front of you? Head over to http://chance.dartmouth.edu/chancewiki/index.php/Main_Page!
Take a look at Chance News 58, where they talk about negative data. And reverse confounding.
Posted in Bias, Chance, EBM | Tagged: Bias, Chance, EBM | Comments Off
Clinical epidemiology in Canada
Posted by rbrands on January 16, 2010
Today’s Toronto Globe and Mail has an article about the funding crisis in Canadian clinical epidemiology.
Posted in EBM, Uncategorized | Tagged: EBM, Therapy | Comments Off
How likely is a woman to get breast cancer?
Posted by rbrands on December 22, 2009
Do women actually have diseases other than breast cancer? You might wonder what the most important diseases are for women (kind of like the WHO’s Global Burden of Disease approach). The Medical Post (2009-Nov-17, page 52) has an article from an academic who contrasts SEER’s risk numbers with those based on other cohorts. The Medical Post seems to have changed their web access policies recently, so I can’t post a link now. Look at the hard copy they mail physicians.
A classic from ChanceWiki
Posted by rbrands on December 22, 2009
Is it possible that all illness relates to subluxation of your vertebrae? I guess it is, huh? Everyone wants evidence nowadays, so let’s get some. Take a look at chiropractors’ take on what counts as evidence at http://chance.dartmouth.edu/chancewiki/index.php/Chance_News_42. The section titled How People Are Fooled by Ideomotor Action.
We are all fasciscts! Down with evidence!
Posted by rbrands on December 22, 2009
As someone who uses evidence in your practice of medicine, and benefits from standard approaches to how to do this, you might want to know that people disagree with this viewpoint. I can’t do justice to this article here. Remember that the variation in human traits is what makes your life interesting! You will need to get this electronically from the UBC Library: Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power and fascism. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2006; 4: 180–186.
Down with the Cochrane Collaboration! Get your evidence from … well what are we supposed to do now? Go with (the negation of) evidence-based medicine?
There have been several episodes recently where people have submitted tongue-in-cheek, or ironic, articles to journals. Could this be one? Look at the grammar and development of ideas in this one. Can it be serious?
Slate.com articles on autism therapy
Posted by rbrands on November 23, 2009
I’ve always been fascinated by the phenomenon of simultaneous demand for evidence and resistance to evidence. “Give us evidence, but only if it confirms this idea.” The autism field is what I term “evidence resistant.” Do you know of areas of your discipline that have this feature? I can’t remember the last time an EBM idea was in the title of an article in the popular press. Slate.com autism therapy article (pdf).
Why EBM? An interview with David Sackett
Posted by rbrands on November 23, 2009
Why EBM? You might just say “because we have estrogen researchers in Canada.” But it’s more than that of course. Much of the rationale for starting the field is just as important today. Recognize your clinical department in his remarks? Check it out at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/when-we-began-we-were-almost-pariahs/article1344833/.
