Future updates: http://chaoticpharmacology.com/hypothesis/ http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1093997
Update (Jan 8, 2014): Evidence Live 2015. April 14 and 15, Examination Schools Conference Centre, University of Oxford.
“Evidence Live is a partnership between The BMJ and the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine in the University of Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences.” – http://evidencelive.org/
The three submitted abstracts were “deemed to be of high quality” by the Conference Planning Committee.
―Analysis of US phase 3 ClinicalTrials.gov records completed before January 1st, 2011 (n=5051; time frame: 2002 to 2014): has been accepted as a 15 minute (10 +5) oral presentation.
―Basic and clinical pharmacology of the “uroselective” α blocker tamsulosin: a critical analysis: has been accepted as a poster.
―Hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are incorrect: accepted as a poster.
Update (Dec 17, 2014)
―Null hypothesis formally rejected.
Update (Dec 15, 2014)
―Null hypothesis rejected.
Update (Dec 7, 2014):
Original post on this blog (Nov 6, 2014)
Hypothesis: Hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are wrong
I have data to support the hypothesis described in the title of this letter.
Before rejecting the null hypothesis I would like to ask the following open question:
Could you support with data that hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are correct? (1,2)
Additional explanation to this question:
– Only respond to this question attaching publicly available raw data.
– Be aware that more than a question this is a challenge: I have data (i.e., evidence) which is contrary to classic (i.e., McMaster) or current (i.e., Oxford) hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine. An important part of this data (but not all) is publicly available.
1. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): The EBM challenge. figshare.
Competing interests: I endorse the principles of open data in human biomedical research.
Read this letter on The BMJ – August 13, 2014. | Re: Greenhalgh T, et al. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014; 348: g3725.
The hypothesis about hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine was the main reason to create this blog about 4 months ago (Aug, 10, 2014 – 3 days before submitting the BMJ letter). A blog is not the proper place to discuss data concerning any research hypothesis. Nonetheless, I will continue informing about any updates in this blog (i.e., papers accepted or rejected). For now, I prefer to practice some moderation (science must pass the test of pre-publication and post-publication peer-review).
Part of this evidence (disclosed at a raw data level) have been published in The BMJ as letters to the editor (i.e., rapid responses) and some comments at PubMed Commons.
– view the complete list via Impactstory.org –
Additional data (raw level) is also available on my figshare public profile.
I don’t have a detailed plan for future postings, I cannot predict the unpredictable, I only promise that this blog will be chaotic…
(I still do not have a plan for future postings)
Chaos begins in this blog
I do not have any sponsorship or research grant to hire data collectors, statisticians, and writers.
I do not have a “pubplan” & I am strongly against ghostwriting
I am also NOT interested in obtaining a research grant to test this hypothesis, BUT if you are a researcher (with or without experience in this field) willing to be involved in any way (e.g., learning, proposing different approaches to data analysis, guide me, scrutinize raw data, reviewing – confidentially – my working papers) please contact me
If you are an undergraduate in medicine, statistics, chemistry, mathematics (not limited to these fields of knowledge) motivated to take part in this research: please contact me.
If you are a postgraduate student (research fellow, MS, PhD) looking for a thesis: please contact me.