Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘evidence based medicine’

Testing times for EBM : NEJM gets ready & begins a new journey

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , on January 19, 2022|

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) the premier journal in medicine originated two centuries ago, in 1811, when  John Collins Warren, a Boston physician, along with James Jackson, submitted a formal prospectus to establish the New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery and Collateral Branches of Science as a medical and philosophical journal. 

Subsequently, the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) purchased the Journal for US$1 and, in 1928, renamed it to The New England Journal of Medicine.

NEJM’s New Journey

It is 2022, after 200 years of providing explosive knowledge in medical science, MMS  starts a new journal, fresh and bold. It is called NEJM Evidence. Can you guess, what is the need for such a journal now? I think the most battered word in science in current times is probably “ evidence”.  It has a unique character of appearing most sacred as well as scandalous at the same time.

NEJM has remained the torchbearer of almost all advances in the medical field seen in the last two centuries.  It is heartening to note the newborn is named as NEJM evidence. It has come at a critical juncture. I am sure, everyone will acknowledge that we are at difficult crossroads. Overwhelmed with unregulated scientific discoveries and publications, struggling to deal with self-inflicted knowledge pandemic. In the process, we have lost “not only” the ability to ignore trivial health issues “but also” failed to provide simple, cost-effective care to the real patients who desperately need it.

Let us hope, (& wish,) NEJM’s new prodigy will guide medical science towards a successful, meaningful, and ethically fulfilling journey for mankind. Meanwhile, let us pray for every medical scientist to be blessed with the required strength and courage to steer in the right direction, weeding off both academic and non-academic contaminants.

 

 

Read Full Post »

FAME 3 fails to defame CABG, cardiologists need not worry though !

Posted in Cardiology -Therapeutic dilemma, Cardiology -unresolved questions, Ethics in Medicine, fame study ffr, Fracional flow reserve, tagged , , , , on November 5, 2021|

News: Series of clinical trials fail to clear the ongoing confusion in the business of cardiac revascularization.FAME 3 is the new addition. 

Caution: A non-academic journal review

There is no secret, about this cold war happening in an incognito mode for territorial rights between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons in glamorous cardiac suits for the past two decades. Of course, we keep believing this is a friendly fight in the overall interest of CAD patients. The ultimate winner should be the patient, not anyone else. Will that happen? Will anyone will allow that to happen? I am not sure.

The FAME3 is a stunning large study from 50 centers FFR guided multivessel PCI, that failed to dethrone CABG (or at least it wanted to sit along with it) I am not a seasoned statistician but definitely can’t understand the logic behind the methodology* and the choice of words in the conclusion from a paper published from a renowned journal.

 

 

(*I can recall an article about Non-inferiority trial  from Lancet (Ref 1) )

FAME 3 aftermaths: A dizzy Interpretation

Before accepting the fact that, FFR guided PCI wasn’t able to show its superiority or to unable to prove its non-Inferiority, while CABG was clearly found to be non-inferior, (rather superior) to PCI, we should take into account an important caveat in the concept of FFR itself, which has at least half a dozen serious hyperemic and non-hyperemic flaws that demanded a more superior,non-hyperemic indices like iFR, RFR, qFR, etc.

Those of you who still believe PCI would be an undisputed modality in multivessel CAD  should take up the challenge and disprove the superiority of CABG by doing the same FAME 3 subset with iFR and other stuff. (Eagerly waiting for the hypothetical iFAME 4 trial)

One more way to Interpret FAME 3: How can we accept FFR guided multivessel PCI as inferior, unless we have an FFR guided CABG (FAME 3 didn’t do this) to compare? Can you guess if only pre-CABG FFR was mandatory criteria, that would have excluded or included important grafts, what would have been the impact of CABG? This is a more dramatic suggestion, that will say sorry to FFR,( the old physiological friend,) and label it as a new villain.

Final message 

Multivessel PCI still has a long way to go before trying to dethrone CABG.  But, strictly scientific cardiologists need not worry much and they can continue to indulge multivessel PCI without FFR, which is no longer unscientific ! Thanks to FAME 3. I think one of the Important indirect consequences (?purpose) of FAME 3 would be, playing the end game for FFR.

Reference

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61604-3

Read Full Post »

“Unconquered” enemy of scientific research in medicine

Posted in bio ethics, Ethics in Medicine, evidence based cardiology, Medcal research, Medical education, Medical ethics, medical quotes, medical satistics, Two line sermons in cardiology, tagged , , , , , on October 3, 2021|

Is there a solution?

As I understand, we don’t have any. Maybe, we can try this.  No way, I can prevent it from appearing ridiculous for the mainstream scientists.

Truths often lie silently  buried deep (many times intentionally). They definitely deserve an intellectual resuscitation beyond the dirty world of data and evidence. Further, why should experience be considered as enemy of evidence ?

Read Full Post »

Which is most important component in any medical research paper ?

Posted in Ethics in Medicine, evidence based cardiology, Medcal research, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on September 11, 2021|

There are about 30000 scientific journals and two million papers every year. Of which 5000 are in medicine (Ref : World university news) 

Now, take a deep breath and answer this query. What do you think is the most important aspect of any scientific or medical research in the current era ?

Final message

With due respect to all researchers, What do you think is the most important aspect of any scientific or medical research?  This query is very much relevant today. All components are equally important is an easy way out. But, that’s not the pathway that will take us to the truth.

Postamble  

Having answered the above question, no way, we can escape from this question –“Which could be the least important component “?

I guess you got it right. In the current scenario, my choice is striking and is sandwiched in the middle of the 7 responses..

Read Full Post »

“To be or Not 2B” : Let us stop fooling around with premature scientific evidence !

Posted in evidence based cardiology, health economics, Public Health, Public health issues, Social medicine, Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2021| Leave a Comment »

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is being projected as a scientific God’s secret specialty. Physicians who don’t follow EBM are considered unfit non-professionals. Presumably, in pursuit of truth, all those glamorous official bodies in cardiology bring out umpteen number of protocols, guidelines, advisories, and recommendations.

The blueprint for EBM

We have the famous 3 levels of recommendation backed up by different levels of evidence. Many of us trust these as the jury’s final verdict for most illnesses in cardiology. I would like to bring one particular issue about this hugely popular model of EBM. It is about one specific class of Indication referred to as 2b. The other day, there was an intense argument for an ICD in a young HCM patient and CRT in DCM based on this 2b stuff. Kindly request all of you to pause for a moment and introspect. We can realize, class 2b plays a mischievous game in EBM with the English language “may and may not”. It tries to push subconsciously an interventional bias from equipoise, in spite of lack of good evidence and clear divergence of opinion and a possible trend towards harm.

Further, there is widespread reluctance in many cardiac workgroups to refer class 3 recommendations as an absolute (or at least relative contraindication) It was strange to note one of my colleagues argued that,  class 3 is also a fair recommendation, to accept or reject is in our domain. I was initially shocked to hear that but had to agree with him ultimately as we realized a significant chunk of interventions we do, like delayed PCI > 24 hrs, CTOs, and chronic stable belongs to the proud class 3 recommendation. The debate came to a funny end when a senior cardiologist confessed somehow class 3 seemed to be a lesser evil than even class 2B.

Final message

For the sake of our patients, we need to bring an urgent reform in the EBM. Let us merge class 2b with class 3 and put it in a single basket and keep it out of reach to all tempting stakeholders. We shall display only class 1 in our therapeutic showcase.

Counterpoint

(*Dynamic recommendations is the norm in science, as we accumulate evidence with time.. Agreed, let us do this silently in research labs. Don’t bring it to practical guidelines. No, can’t agree. Freedom to indulge with an experimental modality in a no-option patient must always be there as we are able to give the benefit of doubt to these helpless patients. This is a valid argument but we must not forget even in dire situations  good option need not be a compulsive action, it can be in action as well)

 

 

Read Full Post »

How to misunderstand health economics ?

Posted in Cardiology -guidelines, Ethics in Medicine, Social medicine, wisdom in cardiology, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 28, 2021|

Read Full Post »

Who is going to save medical science from “peer reviewed” madness ?

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on May 30, 2021|

This 90-second video clip is a “perfect provocation”

Allan Savory  is a renowned ecologist from Africa. He is a global leader in environment and eco protection. He is making this famous comment, during one of his interviews from the deep forests of Zimbabwe, after years of ground-level work in the field of desertification and climate change. I can understand his feelings, as we also encounter similar situations at ground zero of the health care delivery system. (I wonder if there is anything called peer-reviewed bedside caring)

We realize wide gaps between academia, patient care, and research are the norm, not an exception. One reason for this is, even well-learned medical professionals find it difficult to comprehend, that the practice of medicine is essentially an art, administered with love, care, service-mindedness. A cost-effective infrastructure with an immense amount of teamwork is critical ( Of course, guided by a fair amount of knowledge, expertise based on good scientific principles)  

Final message 

As Savory says, let us hope, the future looks bright, that welcomes young researchers from the fringes of the scientific community. Let them be conferred with all courage and resources to course-correct medical science from its frequent aberrant and awkward turns.

 

Read Full Post »

Sailing the Osler’s ship of medicine in the third millennium

Posted in bio ethics, Cardiology -Patient page, cardiology -Therapeutics, Clinical cardiology, general medicine, Medical education, Medical ethics, medical quotes, Two line sermons in cardiology, tagged , , , , , , , on March 31, 2021|

Read Full Post »

Why evidence-based medicine continue to have a turbulent course?

Posted in Cardiology quotes, cardiology-ethics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on February 13, 2021|

Because . . . its current course is not always in the right direction &  not everyone is ready for course correction as well!

Reference

1.Hasnain-Wynia R. Is evidence-based medicine patient-centered and is patient-centered care evidence-based? Health Serv Res. 2006;41(1):1- 

Read Full Post »

Five cardinal principles of practicing “Modern Medicine” (un)successfully

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , on May 19, 2019|

Somehow the concept of  Evidence based medicine (EBM )never excited me in spite of great strides it has made. Probably the main reason for this is, EBMs origin, quality, and credibility is currently severely compromised. (Though It appears to ooze science 24/7 and make us believe in it too !) Herewith, sharing some of the forbidden thoughts(with lots of pun)  for a (un)successful practice of EBM. This is definitely not meant for young and novice medical professionals. Strictly for the ones who can segregate sense from non (S)

Evidence-based Doubting 

 

Reference

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »