1 / 24

SELECTING LITERATURE An Evidence-Based Medicine Approach

B+JD Young Investigators Initiative May 13-15, 2005. SELECTING LITERATURE An Evidence-Based Medicine Approach. Kurt P. Spindler, MD Professor & Vice Chair, Orthopaedics Director, Vanderbilt Sports Medicine & Ortho PCC Head Team Physician, Vanderbilt University. Why EBM Select Literature?.

sezja
Télécharger la présentation

SELECTING LITERATURE An Evidence-Based Medicine Approach

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. B+JD Young Investigators Initiative May 13-15, 2005 SELECTING LITERATUREAn Evidence-Based Medicine Approach Kurt P. Spindler, MD Professor & Vice Chair, Orthopaedics Director, Vanderbilt Sports Medicine & Ortho PCC Head Team Physician, Vanderbilt University

  2. Why EBM Select Literature? • Identify clinically relevant problem! • Limit selection BIAS in peer- review paper • Learn hierarchy clinical studies • Develop hypothesis from best study designs • Caveat: still need to play to study sections bias for innovation and “clinical importance”

  3. Is There Evidence in Literature Supporting EBM Approach for ORTHOPAEDICS? • JBJS-A, Jan 2003 Editorial (Heckman) • Introducing levels of evidence • Five levels • Four study types • AJSM, 2002 Abstract Format (Reider) • Background • Hypothesis • STUDY DESIGN: list • Methods / Results / Conclusion • Clinical relevance

  4. GOAL: Reach for Peaks! • EBM approach review clinical literature • Concepts apply basic science • Application template

  5. Title Author Reference HYPOTHESIS PRIMARY SECONDARY Basics

  6. Type of Study • Treatment • Diagnosis • Screening • Prognosis • Causation

  7. CLINICAL PRACTICE Extreme CAUTION YES: EBM MAYBE • Controlled Clinical Trials • outcomes • complications • risk/benefit • cost/benefit • HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS • In vitro • cell/matrix • gene • biomechanic • THOUSANDS • In vivo • relevant animal • models • biology • healing • biomechanic • safety • TENS OF THOUSANDS Study Design: Cost:

  8. Clinical QUESTIONDetermines Study Design

  9. Study Type with Preferred Design 1° HYPOTHESIS OR PREFERRED TOPIC RESEARCH [EXAMPLES] RESEARCH DESIGN TREATMENT [DRUG, PREVEN- RCT TION, SURG] Diagnosis [dx test] Cross-sect survey Screening [value of test] Cross-sect survey PROGNOSIS [DISEASE, INJURY, LONGITUDINAL CONDITION] COHORT Causation [exposure to . . . ] Cohort or case-control

  10. Sports Medicine Question • Ho: Anterior knee pain after ACL reconstruction is dependent on autograft choice between Ham vs PT • What do you believe? • Approach to literature review: • Select articles that support your bias? • What is research topic? • Treatment choice • Focus review -- RCTs

  11. Traditional Hierarchy ofClinical Treatment Studies • RCT (randomized controlled trials) = only computer or random # table acceptable • Cohort: two or more groups selected basis differences exposure to “agent” and f/u • Case control: pts particular disease/condition identified + “matched” control • Cross-sectional: data collected single timepoint • Case reports/series: medical hxs one or more patients with condition/tx reported on

  12. Why do Treatment Studies Need Control Group? • Basics Scientific Method! • If no control group: tx is same, better, or worse than what? • Quality of “control” group one measure of validity of results • Unfortunately majority orthopaedic literature lack control group -- case series

  13. Anterior Knee Pain S/P ACL Recon Ho: Autograft choice Ham vs PT EBM Review: Systematic review nine RCTs Ref: Spindler AJSM 2004 Answer: NO DIFFERENCE 8/9 studies! Caveat: • Kneeling pain > PT 4/4 studies! • Bynum PT ACL Recon  PF pain Preop = 40%, Postop = 20%, p < 0.05

  14. Basic Science Grant • FOCUS LITERATURE EBM • HYPOTHESIS: focus EBM key clinical problem • BEST STUDY DESIGN TOPIC • Clinical relevance—systematic reviews • Background—related topics • Prelim data—review similar studies • Design—metrics, techniques, alternatives • Stats—method, sample size or power

  15. How to Identify Bias Study BIASExample Allocation groups Selection Fail randomize Intervention Performance Fail control confounding variables Follow-up Exclusion Not uniform or (or Transfer) inadequate (<70%) Outcomes Detection Dissimilar evaluation independent examiner? Validated question- naire?

  16. Definition of Bias • SELECTION or SUSCEPTIBILITY = difference in comparison groups secondary to incomplete randomization • PERFORMANCE = differences in care provided apart from intervention being evaluated • EXCLUSIONorTRANSFER = differences in withdrawal from trial • DETECTION = different evaluation for outcomes best independent examiner or blinding examiner or validated outcome questionnaire self-administered

  17. Sports Medicine Examples Bias • SELECTION: • ACL tr pt self-select OR vs Nonop tx = evaluate OA • Soccer teams self-select ACL inj prevention training, then report difference incidence ACL tr • PERFORMANCE: • Report outcome of meniscal allograft or autologous chondrocytes fail control concomitant ACL recon or HTO! • EXCLUSION OR TRANSFER: • Report conclusions based <70% f/u outcome variable

  18. Statistical and Clinical Significance Outcomes Absolute If ns power = ( ) Clinically Outcome/Result Difference P for ( ) diff significant a. b. c. d.

  19. Examples Statistical Significance vs Clinical Significance • Primary Ho and each AIM determine sample size by choosing a clinically meaningful difference in a single result or outcome measure chosen • Instrumented Laxity (KT 1000) ACL Recon Graft Choice • Literature studies powered detect 1 mm side to side difference (n ≈ 70) • How many surgeons would change practice if results 1 mm (few) vs 2 mm (some) vs 3 mm (many) • Thus clinical significance is based on both individual and “consensus” scientific community • Power or sample size set at 80% avoid Type II () error

  20. Ideal vs Reality in Study Section • NIAMS has no study section for clinical research/outcomes. • If your systematic review does not support perceived bias think twice. Recommend refocus support bias. • Clinical significance vs statistical significance not well understood by basic science study sections. Plethora funded NIAMS studies without clinical significance but positive statistical results. • Seek expert funded opinion on your grant.

  21. Pearls • Develop ideas methods, results, statistics from best EBM in literature review based on realities previously discussed. • Retrospective review “your” cases! • Establish sample size • Timelines to complete • Generate methods • Consult statistician BEFORE begin study!

  22. Summary • EBM review literature • Generate hypothesis (Ho) • Construct preliminary AIMS • Review literature modify Ho and AIMS • Develop TEAM • CONSULT STATISTICIAN • Clinical retrospective reviews clinical pts, variation, outcomes

  23. Thank You

  24. References Wright JG: JBJS-Am 2000 Hurwitz SR: JBJS-Am 2000 McLeod RS: Surgery 1996 Greenhalgh T: How to Read a Paper. Br Med J 2001 Lang TA and Secic M: How to Report Statistics in Medicine. ACP 1997 Spindler K, Johnson R, Reider B: ICL AOSSM 2002

More Related