don’t believe everything you read: an editor’s view
DESCRIPTION
DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ: AN EDITOR’S VIEW . JAMES R. SCOTT, MD I have no conflict of interest to disclose. OBJECTIVES. TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS VALIDITY OF NEW TREATMENTS - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ: AN EDITOR’S VIEW
JAMES R. SCOTT, MD
I have no conflict of interest to disclose.
OBJECTIVES
• TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE
• TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS VALIDITY OF NEW TREATMENTS
• TO APPLY BEST-EVIDENCE IN YOUR CLINICAL PRACTICE
JOHN IOANNIDIS
• WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE. PloS Med 2005;2(8):124
• “The most downloaded document of all time on PubMed”
SCOTT’S RULE
IT WILL NEVER WORK AS WELL IN YOUR PRACTICE AS REPORTED IN THE LITERATURE
"BELIEVE NOTHING THAT YOU SEE IN THE NEWSPAPERS [TV, INTERNET].... IF YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THEM THAT YOU KNOW IS TRUE, BEGIN TO DOUBT IT AT ONCE."
Sir William Osler
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: A RECENT PHENOMENON
RCTs
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1973 1983 1993 2003
Meta-Analyses
02000400060008000
10000120001400016000
1973 1983 1993 2003
2012 – 426,853 RCTs 2012 – 53,042 Meta-Analyses
NUMBER OF PUBLISHED PAPERS WITH “EVIDENCE BASED” MEDICINE IN TITLE
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1992 1996 2002 2004 2007 2009
2013 – NOW > 100,000
EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
DE-EMPHASIZES• INTUITION• EXPERIENCE• PATHOPHYSIOLOGYEMPHASIZES• PROOF• OUTCOMES
PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
• FIRST DO NO HARM• WHAT ARE THE RESULTS? • ARE THE RESULTS VALID?• HOW DO I APPLY THEM TO MY PATIENTS?
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
I RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL – The “Gold Standard”II-2 COHORT OR CASE CONTROL STUDYII-3 LARGE CASE SERIES III CASE REPORT, EXPERT COMMITTEE,
RESPECTED AUTHORITY, CLINICALEXPERIENCE
RULES TO IMPROVE PUBLISHED PAPERS
• LEVELS OF EVIDENCE• GUIDELINES – CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE• TRIAL REGISTRATION• CROSSCHECK FOR PLAGIARISM• DECLARE ALL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS• DETECT FRAUD
PREFERRED STUDIES - RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS (RCT) BEST
• MOST RELIABLE EVIDENCE • CONSORT GUIDELINES• DESIGNED FOR EFFICACY ONLY • MY RULE - INCLUDE ABSOLUTE RISK
– ACTUAL NUMBERS, PERCENTAGES– NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT (NNT)
• NOTE – 25% LATER REFUTED
PROBLEMS TRANSLATING RCTs INTO PRACTICE
• DIFFERENT PATIENTS• COSTS MORE• INSURANCE WON’T COVER• PATIENT DOESN’T WANT IT • YOU ARE BETTER AT SOMETHING ELSE• UNANTICIPATED COMPLICATIONS OR
SIDE EFFECTS
CHALLENGES WITH NEW SURGICAL AND OBSTETRIC PROCEDURES
• RCTs DIFFICULT TO DO • BLINDING NOT POSSIBLE• COHORT/CASE SERIES NEXT BEST• UNETHICAL NOT TO COMPARE WITH CURRENTLY ACCEPTED METHODCAUTION: IN YOUR OWN PRACTICE
USE IRB & INFORMED CONSENT
CLINICAL JUDGEMENT STILL IMPORTANT
• WOMEN UNDERGOING ABDOMINAL SACROCOLPOPEXY RANDOMIZED TO BURCH OR NO BURCH (Brubaker et al. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1557)
• BURCH LOWERED INCIDENCE OF SUI FROM 44% TO 24% (20%)
• REAL WORLD – PT WITH VARICOSITIES BLEEDING, HEMATOMA & 8 UNITS OF BLOOD
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
EFFICACY – UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONSEFFECTIVENESS – IN REAL CLINICAL SETTING
(YOUR PRACTICE)
• NO RCT FITS EVERY PATIENT• ALMOST NO RCT FITS ANY PATIENT PERFECTLY• NOT GOOD AT DETECTING COMPLICATIONS
META-ANALYSIS: STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
ADVANTAGES• STANDARD RULES • STATISTICAL POWERDISADVANTAGES• SUBJECTIVE ASSUMPTIONS• COMPLICATED, ARTIFICIAL• ONLY AS GOOD AS THE TRIALS USED • ODDS RATIOS & CONFIDENCE INTERVALS • TAKEN AS GOSPEL
COCHRANE REVIEWS
• MOST WELL DONE• PUBLICATION BIAS• LONG & BORING• SOME OUTDATED• LIMITED ACCESS• ODDS RATIOS ONLY
STATISTICS
A FELLOW WITH ONE LEG FROZEN IN ICE AND THE OTHER LEG IN BOILING WATER IS COMFORTABLE – ON AVERAGE.
J. M. Yancey
REALITY
NO RANDOMIZED TRIALS OR META-ANALYSES FOR ABOUT > 50-60% OF WHAT WE DO
NO RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
• VBAC• CESAREAN ON REQUEST• SOME GYN SURGICAL PROCEDURES• MANY NEW MATERIALS & DEVICES
EXAMPLE: THERE ARE NO RANDOMIZED TRIALS TO PROVE THAT PARACHUTES WORK
RECOMMENDATION:
EVIDENCE-BASED GURUSSHOULD PARTICIPATE IN A DOUBLE- BLIND RCT
Parachute Use to Prevent Death and Major Trauma. Smith GCS et al. BMJ 2003;327:149
COHORT STUDIES & CASE SERIES STILL USEFUL
• MORE CHANCE OF BIAS • STROBE GUIDELINES• HOW IT WORKS IN THE TRENCHES• LONG-TERM FOLLOWUP• FIRST REPORTS OF ADVERSE
EVENTS OR RARE COMPLICATIONS
LANDMARK OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
• FIRST DESCRIPTION OF AIDS BASED ON CLINICAL FINDINGS IN FIVE PATIENTS
• GOTTLIEB – 33 YR OLD ASSISTANT PROF.• SCHROFF – RESIDENT IN INTERNAL MED.
Gottlieb MS, Schroff et al. N Engl J Med 1981;305:1425
CITED 2,532 TIMES
SMALL CASE SERIES: OBSTETRIC COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LUPUS ANTICOAGULANT
D. WARE BRANCH MD JAMES R. SCOTT MD NEIL K. KOCHENOUR MD ED HERSHGOLD MD
N ENGL J MED 1985;313:1322
SIGNIFICANCE: Based on 8 Patients
• NEWLY RECOGNIZED SYNDROME• TREATABLE CAUSE OF FETAL DEATH• MAJOR ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID ANTIBODY
RESEARCH EFFORT NEXT DECADE
• CITED 583 TIMES
GOOD CASE REPORT
• FIRST SUCCESSFUL EMBOLIZATION FOR SEVERE POSTPARTUM BLEEDING*
* BY CHIEF RESIDENT @ U OF UTAH
BROWN BJ et al. Uncontrollable Postpartum Bleeding: A New Approach to Hemostasis Through Angiographic Embolization. Obstet Gynecol 1979;54:371.
• CITED 132 TIMES
WORTHY OF HEALTHY SKEPTICISM
• GUEST SPEAKERS • DATABASE STUDIES – Inaccurate• LARGE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES – Clinically
Irrelevant• DECISION ANALYSES – Soft data, assumptions• DRUG COMPANY SPONSORED – Ghostwriters
Bias, Overstated conclusions• ADVERTISEMENTS - Embarrassing
ALL TOO COMMON:
• WIDELY QUOTED IN MEDIA• SAME DATABASE AS WITH
MAGNETIC FIELDS• ? BIOLOGIC PLAUSIBILITY
NO INCREASED RISK IN EPIDEMIOL. SAME MO. (no publicity)
86 Papers – Conflicting Results
MY TAKE: ALL NONSENSECONCLUSION – COFFEE ASSOCIATED WITH MISCARRIAGE
WAKEFIELD 1998 PAPER IN LANCET RELATED MMR VACCINATIONS IN CHILDREN TO AUTISM
• DECLARED FRAUDULANT AND RETRACTED IN 2010.
• DID TREMENDOUS HARM • “SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED”
Richard Smith, Former Editor of BMJ• SAME PATTERN OCCURING AGAIN MULTIPLE
WEAK ASSOCIATIONS --- PUBLICIZED BY MEDIA
• LARGE DATABASE• LOGESTIC REGRESSION
“MODELING”• Odds Ratios (95% CI) =
1.21 (1.01-1.46)• WIDELY PUBLICIZED BY
THE MEDIA
CONCLUSION: INDUCTION OF LABOR AND AUGMENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH AUTISM
INTERPRETIVE BIAS AND OVERSTATED CONCLUSIONS
• MISLEADING RESULTS - “3-FOLD INCREASED RISK …” REALLY 1/MILLION VS 3/MILLION - STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUT CLINICALLY IRRELEVANT
OTHER BORDERLINE “ASSOCIATIONS” WITH AUTISM DURING PAST YEAR
• Flu & Fever During Pregnancy• Obese Mothers, Weight gain • Short Pregnancy Interval• Maternal Thyroid Dysfunction• ICSI (IVF)• Older Fathers• Antidepressants, Gluten Sensitivity• F.H. of Autoimmune Disease• Lyme Disease• Air Pollution, Pesticides
TRUTH
ALL OF THESE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES WITH SMALL ODDS RATIOS SHOULD END WITH THE STATEMENT: “WE FOUND A WEAK ASSOCIATION AND WE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT MEANS”
David Grimes
CAUTION
• 75% CLINICAL TRIALS INDUSTRY FUNDED• PURPOSE - MAXIMIZE FINANCIAL RETURN• ONLY 1/3 NOW DONE IN UNIVERSITIES• WHO CONTROLLED DATA & WROTE PAPER• TIES WITH COMPANIES - MANY AUTHORS &
59% OF EXPERTS WRITING GUIDELINES • 5X > CHANCE OF FAVORABLE OUTCOME
WHEN COMMERCIALLY SPONSORED
PREDATORY OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
• 8250 JOURNALS – 438 PUBLISHERS, 1/3rd IN INDIA
• ADVERTISE FOR PAPERS• CHARGE AUTHOR FEE TO PUBLISH• 304 VERSIONS OF FLAWED AND
FICTITIOUS WONDER DRUG PAPER SUBMITTED ACCEPTED BY 157 (>50%) SCIENCE 2013;342:60-65.
SUBTLE PROBLEMS DESPITE THE RULES AS INDUCTION AND MAINTENANCE THERAPY FOR ULCERATIVE COLITIS. NEJM 2013;369;699
BOTTOM LINE: MODERATE EFFECT AT 6 & 52 WEEKS
• Complicated RCT – 211 centers in 34 countries
• Compared drug vs placebo• 16 Authors – 10 with multiple ties to
industry – 7 Company Employees• Company held & analyzed data• No mention of probable cost
($100,000 per year)
• Company sponsored RCTs• Marketing in the guise of
research – to publicize expensive drugs
• Open Label, No Control Group, Short-term, Physician payment Example: VIOXX
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN:
• INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS • COMPARE TO PRESENT DRUG/Rx• INCLUDE COST COMPARISON• REJECT EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES
WITH ODDS RATIOS < 3-4• REQUIRE ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OR NNT• TRANSPARENCY – DISCLOSE ALL
CONFLICTS INCLUDING EDITORS
• CLINICALLY RELEVANT
• VALID STUDY DESIGN
• STRINGENT REVIEW PROCESS
• RESULTS PHYSICIANS CAN TRUST
DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME - OTHER RELIABLE AND USEFUL SOURCES
• COCHRANE LIBRARYwww.cochrane.co.uk
• ACOG PRACTICE BULLETINSwww.greenjournal.org
• UP TO DATE www.uptodate.com• MEDICAL LETTER www.medicalletter.com
CHALLENGE
TO TRANSLATE IMPERSONAL & DOGMATIC STATISTICS INTO PERSONALIZED CARE OF REAL FLESH & BLOOD PEOPLE.
STILL IMPORTANT
• COMPASSION• EMPATHY• COMMUNICATIO
N• CLINICAL
JUDGEMENT• COMMON SENSE• ACCESS
REFERENCES
1. Scott JR. Show me the evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100(3):403-4.2. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS
Med 2005;2(8)e124 3. Scott JR. Improving systematic reviews for clinicians: a journal
editor’s view. Paediat Perinat Epidemiol 2008;22(1):38-41.4. Scott JR. Evidence-based medicine under attack. Obstet Gynecol
2009;113(6):1202-3.5. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. False alarms and pseudo-epidemics. The
limitations of obsevational epidemiology. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120(4):920-7.
6. Smith R. The Trouble With Medical Journals. The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd. Edward Arnold Publishers. 2011, London, UK
7. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 2013;342:60-7.