Evidence based medicine (EBM) not evidence-based: medicine is broken.

Evidence Live 2015: Hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are incorrect

“Evidence based medicine insists on rigorous standards to appraise clinical interventions. Failure to apply the same rules to its own tools could be equally damaging” – Joseph L, Ioannidis JPA, Norma T, et al. The case of the misleading funnel plot BMJ 2006; 333:597.

Aims

Hypothesis: Hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are incorrect.

Objective

To analyze the strength of evidence provided by different types of study designs: systematic reviews and meta-analysis, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies (case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional).

Methods

Analysis of public databases (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Embase, and WHO ICTRP) according to the following variables: geographical locations, sponsors (i.e., industry and non-industry), study designs, conditions (diseases), and interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological).

Estimation of unpublished clinical trials according to the variables listed above.

Analysis of publication bias in systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Results

Data and analysis supports the hypothesis in the title of this abstract.

Conclusions

Human pharmacology is a non-linear science created by multiple variables at different levels of complexity:

  1. Drug effects at molecular and cellular levels: drug-receptor interaction (pharmacodynamics) and drug disposition (pharmacokinetics)
  2. Effects of drugs on human health and disease: safety, efficacy, and effectiveness

  3. Effects of drugs in the society: economical aspects (i.e., pharmacoeconomics), epidemiology (i.e., pharmacological surveillance), healthcare systems (i.e., definitions of essential medicines), over the counter availability of medicines, drug addiction, and many other variables.

Hierarchical levels of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are over-simplistic to understand complex relationships involved in human pharmacology. The first EBM article matching search terms in PubMed was published in 1992. The model of drug approval into the market, as well as our methods for appraisal of the evidence involving therapeutic interventions in humans, are supported by opinions instead of real data (i.e., evidence).

Evidence-based medicine is not “evidence-based”.

References

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/762595

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1093997


Ramirez, Jorge H (2015): Evidence Live 2015: Hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are incorrect. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286767

Chaos Theory and Pharmacology

Re: Evidence based medicine: flawed system but still the best we’ve gotFiona Godlee. 348:doi10.1136/bmj.g440


Dear Editor,

I want to formally reject the null hypothesis of my research.(1)

I respectfully disagree with the statement about EBM in the title of this article: “flawed system but still the best we’ve got.”

I think is quite the opposite: it is probably the worst we’ve got.(2)

You mentioned Winston Churchill in this paper and I would like to quote him: “We shall not surrender.”

The strength of evidence has been frequently represented as a pyramid: there is no pyramid of evidence – it is a collective delusion and now medicine has been severely broken.

We must fix medicine now, but first we must recognize that EBM is not evidence-based and it is causing medicine a great damage. We need to stop this nonsense now before it’s too late.

It was already predicted…

View original post 208 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: