Literature DB >> 28881000

How to survive the medical misinformation mess.

John P A Ioannidis1,2,3, Michael E Stuart4,5, Shannon Brownlee6,7, Sheri A Strite5.   

Abstract

Most physicians and other healthcare professionals are unaware of the pervasiveness of poor quality clinical evidence that contributes considerably to overuse, underuse, avoidable adverse events, missed opportunities for right care and wasted healthcare resources. The Medical Misinformation Mess comprises four key problems. First, much published medical research is not reliable or is of uncertain reliability, offers no benefit to patients, or is not useful to decision makers. Second, most healthcare professionals are not aware of this problem. Third, they also lack the skills necessary to evaluate the reliability and usefulness of medical evidence. Finally, patients and families frequently lack relevant, accurate medical evidence and skilled guidance at the time of medical decision-making. Increasing the reliability of available, published evidence may not be an imminently reachable goal. Therefore, efforts should focus on making healthcare professionals, more sensitive to the limitations of the evidence, training them to do critical appraisal, and enhancing their communication skills so that they can effectively summarize and discuss medical evidence with patients to improve decision-making. Similar efforts may need to target also patients, journalists, policy makers, the lay public and other healthcare stakeholders.
© 2017 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28881000     DOI: 10.1111/eci.12834

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest        ISSN: 0014-2972            Impact factor:   4.686


  18 in total

1.  Renaissance, reinvention, or rhetoric: mitochondria in reproductive medicine 2017.

Authors:  David F Albertini
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.

Authors:  Barbara K Redman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Improving cancer survivors' e-health literacy via online health communities (OHCs): a social support perspective.

Authors:  Junjie Zhou; Changyu Wang
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 4.442

4.  Paragraph-level Simplification of Medical Texts.

Authors:  Ashwin Devaraj; Byron C Wallace; Iain J Marshall; Junyi Jessy Li
Journal:  Proc Conf       Date:  2021-06

Review 5.  Evidence-based medicine and big genomic data.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 6.150

6.  Hypofractionation in COVID-19 radiotherapy: A mix of evidence based medicine and of opportunities.

Authors:  M Portaluri; M C Barba; D Musio; F Tramacere; F Pati; S Bambace
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 6.280

7.  Knowledge and use of evidence-based medicine in daily practice by health professionals: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Carmelo Lafuente-Lafuente; Catia Leitao; Insaf Kilani; Zineb Kacher; Cynthia Engels; Florence Canouï-Poitrine; Joël Belmin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-30       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Right by your side? - the relational scope of health and wellbeing as congruence, complement and coincidence.

Authors:  Pelle Pelters
Journal:  Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being       Date:  2021-12

9.  Associations Between Characteristics of Web-Based Diabetes News and Readers' Sentiments: Observational Study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Hans Vehof; Eibert Heerdink; José Sanders; Enny Das
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 10.  Nutrition in times of Covid-19, how to trust the deluge of scientific information.

Authors:  Maria Isabel T D Correia
Journal:  Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 3.620

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.