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.
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.