Literature DB >> 10230750

The quality of medical evidence in hematology-oncology.

B Djulbegovic1, T P Loughran, C A Hornung, G Kloecker, E N Efthimiadis, T J Hadley, J Englert, M Hoskins, G H Goldsmith.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of the medical evidence available to the clinician in the practice of hematology/oncology.
METHODS: We selected 14 neoplastic hematologic disorders and identified 154 clinically important patient management decision/interventions, ranging from initial treatment decisions to those made for the treatment of recurrent or refractory disease. We also performed a search of the scientific literature for the years 1966 through 1996 to identify all randomized controlled trials in hematology/oncology.
RESULTS: We identified 783 randomized controlled trials (level 1 evidence) pertaining to 37 (24%) of the decision/interventions. An additional 32 (21%) of the decision/interventions were supported by evidence from single arm prospective studies (level 2 evidence). However, only retrospective or anecdotal evidence (level 3 evidence) was available to support 55% of the identified decision/interventions. In a retrospective review of the decision/interventions made in the management of 255 consecutive patients, 78% of the initial decision/interventions in the management of newly diagnosed hematologic/oncologic disorders could have been based on level 1 evidence. However, more than half (52%) of all the decision/interventions made in the management of these 255 patients were supported only by level 2 or 3 evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that level 1 evidence to support the development of practice guidelines is available primarily for initial decision/interventions of newly diagnosed diseases. Level 1 evidence to develop guidelines for the management of relapsed or refractory malignant diseases is currently lacking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10230750     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(98)00391-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  8 in total

Review 1.  From craft to profession: the path to highly predictable cancer care.

Authors:  Joseph O Jacobson
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  Counterpoint: sowing the seeds of standardized care to reap better patient outcomes.

Authors:  Joseph O Jacobson
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.840

3.  [Guidelines: reality and quality].

Authors:  S Rogenhofer; F Zengerling; M Schrader; S C Müller
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Complementary medicine in guidelines of the German Guideline Program in Oncology: comparison of the evidence base between complementary and conventional therapy. huebner@med.uni-frankfurt.de.

Authors:  J Huebner; M Follmann
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 4.553

5.  The use of older studies in meta-analyses of medical interventions: a survey.

Authors:  Nikolaos A Patsopoulos; John Pa Ioannidis
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2009-05-26

6.  Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in polycystic ovary syndrome.

Authors:  Anna Partsinevelou; Elias Zintzaras
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Materializing research promises: opportunities, priorities and conflicts in translational medicine.

Authors:  John PA Ioannidis
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2004-01-31       Impact factor: 5.531

8.  Rational decision making in medicine: Implications for overuse and underuse.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic; Shira Elqayam; William Dale
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 2.431

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.