Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Evidence-based Practice in Medicine and Health Care pp 45–60Cite as

Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Guidelines in Cardiology. Promoting Science, Practice, or Bureaucracy?

  • Chapter

  • 1127 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group (2002) Major Outcomes in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients Randomized to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Calcium Channel Blocker vs Diuretic. JAMA 288:2981–2997

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antoni DH, Beuckelmann D, Hambrecht R et al. (2002) Therapie mit Beta-Adrenorezeptorantagonisten bei der chronischen Herzinsuffizienz. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 127:2459–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. AAMC Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research (2001) Protecting Subjects, Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress. Policy and Guidelines for the Oversight of Individual Financial Interests in Human Subjects Research. http://www.aamc.org/members/coitf/firstreport.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bertrand ME, Simoons ML, Fox KA et al. (2002) Management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. European Heart Journal 23:1809–1840

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Califf RM, DeMets DL (2002) Principles From Clinical Trials Relevant to Clinical Practice: Part I. Circulation 106:1015–1021

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Califf RM, DeMets DL (2002) Part II. Circulation 106: 1172–1175

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J (2002) Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ 325:1391–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS (2002) Relationships Between Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Pharmaceutical Industry. JAMA 287:612–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Davidoff F et al. (2001) Sponsorship, Authorship, and Accountability. New England Journal of Medicine 345:825–827

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. DeMets DL, Califf RM (2002) Lessons Learned From Recent Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: Part I. Circulation 106:746–751

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. DeMets DL, Califf RM (2002) Part II. Circulation 106: 880–886

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Deng MC et al., COCPIT Study Group (2000) Effect of receiving a heart transplant. BMJ 321:540–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1999) Klinische Forschung — Denkschrift. ©2002-3 http://www.dfg.de

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dierks C (2003) Legal implications of guidelines. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 128:815–819

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dissmann W, Ridder M de (2002) The soft science of German cardiology. Lancet 359:2027–29 Discussion: Interventional cardiology in Germany. Lancet 360: 1694-96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Erbel R, Engel HJ, Kübler W et al. (1997) Interventionelle Koronartherapie. Zei tschrift fur Kardiologie 86:1040–1063

    Google Scholar 

  17. Erdmann E, Hoppe UC (2001) Leitlinien zur Therapie der chronischen Herzinsuffizienz. Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie 90: 218–237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fletcher GF (2001) Exercise Standards for Testing and Training. Circulation 104:1694–1740

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 317:1415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goodman SN (2002) The mammography dilemma: A crisis for Evidence-Based Medicine? Annals of Internal Medicine 137:363–65

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH (2002) Physicians’ and patients’ choices in evidence based Practice. Evidence does not make decisions, people do. BMJ 324:1350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Joost HG (2003) Welche Interaktionen gibt es bei gleichzeitiger Gabe von ASS und ACE-Hemmern? Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 128: 398

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kuhlmann E (1999) Between informed consent and denying information: patient information under economical constraints. Ethik Med 11: 146–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuhn TS (1962) Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kunz R, Ollenschläger G et al. (2000) Lehrbuch Evidenzbasierte Medizin in Klinik und Praxis. Deutscher Ärzteverlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lauterbach KW, Redaèlli M (2002) Evidence based medicine in der Kardiologie. Cardio News 4:41–42

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lenzer J (2002) Alteplase for stroke: money and optimistic claims buttress the “brain attack” campaign. BMJ 324: 723–726 Saver JL, Kidwell CS, Starkman S (2002) Commentary: Thrombolysis in stroke: it works! BMJ 324: 727-729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Messerli F (2002) Life protection: Learnings from new clinical trials in hypertension. The world after ALLHAT. Davos

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pearson TA, Mensah GA, Wayne Alexander R et al. (2003) Markers of Inflammation and Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation 107:499–511 http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/107/3/499.pdf

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pendleton D, King J (2002) Values and leadership. BMJ 325: 1352–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Perleth M, Raspe H (1998) Evidenz-basierte Medizin: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 140:99–102

    Google Scholar 

  32. Poole-Wilson P (2003) Priorities in health care and ethical considerations. Davos Lecture, Febr. 14, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  33. Praetorius F (1992) Bayes City: The Objectivity of Indications (Bayes-Stadt... Ein Plädoyer für den diagnoseführenden Arzt). Deutsches Ärzteblatt 89:2113–2120

    Google Scholar 

  34. Praetorius F, Sahm S (2001) The Ethical Aspect of Regularisation in Medicine. Ethik Med 13:221–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Praetorius F (1999) Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) Registry of the German Community Hospitals: Ethical Consequences of an Internal Quality Control. (Selbstbegrenzung als Modell?) Ethik Med 11:89–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Praetorius F (2003) Nach der finalen Reform — Traum eines Kardiologen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 100:3212

    Google Scholar 

  37. Raspe H (2001) “Die Heilkunde wird eine Wissenschaft sein, oder sie wird nicht sein.” Zeitschrift für Ärztliche Fortbildung und Qualitatssicherung 95:495–501

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rogler G, Schölmerich J (2000) “Evidence-Biased Medicine” — oder: Die trügerische Sicherheit der Evidenz. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 125:1122–1128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ruskin JN (1989) The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST). New England Journal of Medicine 321:386–388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schulman KA, Seils DM et al. (2002) A National Survey of Provisions in Clinical-Trial Agreements between Medical Schools and Industry Sponsors. New England Journal of Medicine 347:1335–1341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Senges J, Gitt AK (2002) Reicht die zur Verfügung stehende Datenmenge und Datenqualität aus, um medizinische Entscheidungen abzusichern? Evidence-based Medicine. 68. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie

    Google Scholar 

  42. Smith R (2002) Making progress with competing interests. BMJ 325:1375–1376

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sox HC, Hickam DH, Marton KL et al. (1990) Using the Patient’s History to Estimate the Probability of Coronary Artery Disease: A Comparison of Primary, Care and Referral Practices. American Journal of Medicine 89:7–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. The ASSENT-3 Investigators (2001) Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin. Lancet 358:605–13

    Google Scholar 

  45. Topol EJ, Califf RM, Van de Werf F et al. (1997) Perspectives on large-scale cardiovascular clinical trials for the new millennium. Circulation 95:1072–1082

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Trappe HJ, Löllgen H (2000) Leitlinien zur Ergometrie. Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie 89:821–837

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Vogd W (2002) An Increase in Professionalization or Erosion of Medical Autonomy? The Implications of Evidence Based Medicine and the New Functional Elites in Medicine Seen from the Perspective of Systems and Interaction Theory. (Professionalisierungsschub oder Auflösung ärztlicher Autonomie?). Zeitschrift für Soziologie 31: 294–315

    Google Scholar 

  48. Von Schacky C (2002) Koronare Herzkrankheit. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 127:2429–2431

    Google Scholar 

  49. Yusuf S, Cairns JA et al. (2002) Evidence-based Cardiology. BMJ Books, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Frank Praetorius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Instituut voor Gezondheidsethiek, Universiteit Maastricht, Universiteitssingel 40 (West), NL-6229, ER Maastricht, Germany

    Ruud ter Meulen

  2. Professur f. Medizinethik, Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Klingsorstrasse 119, D-12203, Berlin, Germany

    Nikola Biller-Andorno

  3. Abt. Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Universität Göttingen, Humboldtallee 36, D-37073, Goettingen, Germany

    Christian Lenk

  4. Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive Building 10, Room 1C118, Bethesda, MD, 20892-1156, USA

    Reidar K. Lie MD, PhD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Praetorius, F. (2005). Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Guidelines in Cardiology. Promoting Science, Practice, or Bureaucracy?. In: ter Meulen, R., Biller-Andorno, N., Lenk, C., Lie, R.K. (eds) Evidence-based Practice in Medicine and Health Care. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27133-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27133-3_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22239-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-27133-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation