You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 284 No. 24, December 27, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (3)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

What Is the Best Evidence for Making Clinical Decisions?

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Guyatt and colleagues1 suggest a hierarchy of study design to evaluate the strength of evidence for making treatment decisions. In promoting the superiority of single randomized trials over systematic reviews of observational studies, the authors risk making the same mistake that evidence-based medicine professes to avoid—relying on personal experience and disregarding the best available evidence.

Randomized trials are not always the best way to evaluate treatment in a given clinical scenario, and poorly conducted randomized trials may lead to erroneous conclusions and produce contradictory results. Evidence suggests that observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can produce similar estimates of the effects of treatment,2 and that meta-analyses of observational studies produce results that are similar to meta-analyses of randomized trials.3

Furthermore, current rigid hierarchy promoted by Guyatt et al will necessarily place less value on evidence that does not fit into a specific category.4 More precise . . . [Full Text of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Randomized Trial of Estrogen Plus Progestin for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Postmenopausal Women
, , , , , , , and
JAMA. ;280():605-613.
FULL TEXT  

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-Based Medicine: Principles for Applying the Users' Guides to Patient Care
, , , , , , , , and
JAMA. ;284():1290-1296.
FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Bridging The Inferential Gap: The Electronic Health Record And Clinical Evidence
Stewart et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:w181-w191.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Searching for Evidence-Based Medicine in the Literature Part 3: Assessment
Bartkowiak
Clin Med Res 2005;3:113-115.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.