1 / 38

JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery : Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery : Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer. John S. Rhee, MD, MPH Wayne F. Larrabee, Jr, MD. 1. What Is Evidence-Based Medicine?. What Is Evidence-Based Medicine?.

lpepin
Télécharger la présentation

JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery : Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery:Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer John S. Rhee, MD, MPH Wayne F. Larrabee, Jr, MD

  2. 1 What Is Evidence-Based Medicine? Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  3. What Is Evidence-Based Medicine? • “The conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” – Sackett et al1 • Integration of 3 critical elements • Best research evidence • Clinical expertise • Patient values • 1Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-72. Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  4. What Is Evidence-Based Medicine? Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  5. What Evidence-Based Medicine Is Not • EBM is not “old hat” • “Everyone is doing it already” • EBM is not impossible to practice • EBM is not “cookbook” medicine • EBM is not cost-cutting medicine • EBM is not restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  6. Case Example • Dr Nash has been in practice for 10 years. He sees a 60-year-old woman in his office who would be a good candidate for a face-lift. Patient asks about “new medicine X” that may decrease postsurgical bruising. He is unsure if he should recommend the use of this medication. Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  7. The MEDLINE Search • MeSH, Google? – rhytidectomy, “new medicine X,” aging face, ??? • Limiting the search • Randomized clinical trial (RCT)? Meta-analyses? Cochrane review? • Level of evidence • Best level is 4? • Best level is 2? Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  8. Level of Evidence Table • Adapted from Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1001. Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  9. Level of evidence plays a role in just 1 circle (current best evidence) in the EBM picture Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  10. How to Critique an Original Study: Going Beyond Level of Evidence • Are the results valid? • Patient dropout rate • Length of follow-up • Patient cohort makeup • What are the results? • How large was the treatment effect? • How precise was the estimate of the effect? • How was the effect measured? • Are the results applicable to my patients? • Study patients similar to my patients? • Outcome measures clinically relevant? • Are my surgical skills and techniques similar to those of the study surgeons? Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  11. Incorporate All 3 Elements of EBM Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  12. Case Example (Reprise) • Dr Nash integrates the 3 elements of evidence-based medicine to decide what to do for this patient • Literature review and best evidence level • Best available evidence is 2, no RCTs • Predominantly level 4 evidence supporting efficacy of this medication • Clinical expertise • Comfortable with own surgical procedure and past outcomes without “new medication X” • Surgical cohort in study was predominantly male with different surgical technique, so results may not be applicable for his patient • Patient values • Patient is aware of surgeon experience with procedure and made aware of current level of evidence and accepts recommendations of surgeon not to use “new medication X” Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  13. 2 Facing Levels of Evidence The JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery Initiative Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  14. Levels of Evidence Designation • Only applicable to clinical, therapeutic (disease treatment) studies • Examples include any treatment or interventions in which outcomes are provided • Nonratable articles include (but are not limited to) narrative reviews, editorials, videos, and studies that are basic science, non–human-based, diagnostic, and cadaver/anatomy and survey/questionnaire based Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  15. Building Blocks of Evidence-Based Practice Slide 15 Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer January 2, 2020 •

  16. Level of Evidence Table • Adapted from Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1001. Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  17. Study Designs Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  18. Descriptive Studies • Observational, nonanalytic • Describe patterns of “distribution of disease” • Person, place, time • Quick, easy, inexpensive • Help in “formulation of hypotheses” Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  19. Case Report – Level of Evidence: 5 • Observational, descriptive • Detailed report of an unusual observed characteristic of a single patient • Advantages • Inexpensive • May lead to formulation of hypothesis • Disadvantages • Based on experience of 1 patient Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  20. Case Series – Level of Evidence: 4 • Observational, descriptive • Characteristics observed in group of patients • Advantages • Inexpensive • Useful in formulation of hypothesis • Disadvantages • No control group • Bias related to subject or characteristic selection Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  21. Cross-Sectional Studies – Level of Evidence: 4 • Observational, descriptive • Data on individual patients at 1 point in time • Exposure and disease measured simultaneously • Prevalence of disease and exposure can be calculated • Useful for formulation of hypothesis about presence of association between exposure and disease Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  22. Cross-Sectional Studies – Level of Evidence: 4 • Advantages • Inexpensive • Best design for studying the status quo of disease or condition • Disadvantages • Provide only a “snapshot in time” • “The chicken or the egg” dilemma • Difficult to choose control or comparison group Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  23. Study Designs Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  24. Analytic Studies:Observational or Experimental • Provide information about determinants of disease by testing hypotheses • Observational analytic studies • “Investigator simply observes” • Experimental analytic studies • “Investigator allocates exposure” Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  25. Case-Control Studies – Level of Evidence: 3 • Observational, analytic • Cases matched with controls • Cases = those with disease/outcome of interest • Control = comparative group without disease • Past “exposure” is determined • Proportions with the “exposure” within each group are compared Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  26. Case-Control Studies – Level of Evidence: 3 • Advantages • Quick and least expensive of analytic designs • Efficient for rare diseases with long latent periods • Disadvantages • Control group selection difficult • Disease incidence rates and relative risks cannot be calculated • Temporal relationship between exposure and disease is sometimes difficult to establish • Prone to selection and recall bias Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  27. Prospective Cohort Studies – Level of Evidence: 2 • Observational, analytic • Participants are free of disease/outcome of interest at onset of study • Participants selected on exposure/risk factor under study • Exposed group (treatment group) vs unexposed group • Participants followed over period of time to assess occurrence of disease or outcome • Formulation of incidence rates and relative risk Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  28. Prospective Cohort Studies – Level of Evidence: 2 • Advantages • Establishment of temporal relationship between exposure (treatment) and disease • Assessment of multiple effects of a single exposure (treatment) • Calculation of incidence rates and relative risk • Selection bias can be controlled or minimized • Disadvantages • Very time-consuming and expensive • Inefficient for rare diseases • Dropout rate can affect validity of results • An association but not necessarily causation between exposure (treatment) and disease can be made Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  29. Study Designs Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  30. Therapeutic Experimental Studies • Randomized or nonrandomized • Analytic studies • Commonly called clinical trials • Exposure/intervention is controlled or allocated by investigator • Experimental group vs control group • Participants screened for eligibility Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  31. Nonrandomized Clinical Trials – Level of Evidence: 2 • Comparison group is historical • Historical controls • Can lead to bias in analysis • Weaker study design due to bias in patient assignment Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  32. Randomized Clinical Trials – Level of Evidence: 1 • “Gold standard” in study designs • Randomized assignment to either experimental or control group • Removes potential selection bias • Potential for bias is prevented by blinding the participant to the intervention • Double-blinded = when both investigator and participant are blinded to the intervention Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  33. Randomized Clinical Trials – Level of Evidence: 1 • Advantages • Provide strongest evidence for determining causation • Least number of problems or biases • Best design to assess efficacy of a treatment or procedure • Disadvantages • Very expensive and time-consuming • Inefficient if effect of treatment is small • Criteria for measuring outcome may be controversial • Ethical issues Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  34. Meta-analysis Studies – Level of Evidence: 1 • Results from published studies combined to provide overall conclusion • Ideally comprised of RCTs only • Smaller sample–sized studies that do not achieve statistical significance are combined • Studies need to be similar with respect to disease and exposure/intervention Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  35. Meta-analysis Studies – Level of Evidence: 1 • Advantages • Provide a reliable estimate of most likely effect of an exposure/intervention • Useful for planning future trial with adequate power • Disadvantages • Carry risk of several biases • Meta-analysis of observational studies especially suspect • Too much bias and too many confounding variables Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  36. Systematic Reviews – Level of Evidence: Variable • A thorough and systematic review of the literature targeted by a specific research question • Methods and results should be reproducible and transparent to all • May assign levels of evidence to existing studies • Identify knowledge gaps and point to needed areas of investigation • Dependent on level of evidence of primary literature Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  37. Meta-analysis ≠ Systematic Review Systematic Review Meta-analysis Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer

  38. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery:Evidence-Based Medicine and Level of Evidence Primer John S. Rhee, MD, MPH Wayne F. Larrabee, Jr, MD

More Related