Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Make Decisions in Healthcare?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vascular Diseases for the Non-Specialist

  • 912 Accesses

Abstract

Scientific valid evidence may be acquired from a number of studies capable of supporting or denying a theory about a healthcare treatment, a diagnostic intervention, or about the frequency of occurrence of a health event. However, the translation of scientific knowledge into decisions in healthcare requires methodological expertise and comprehension of the potentials and limitations of each type of evidence. In this chapter, we invite the readers to think more scientifically in their daily practice. We didactically discuss relevant aspects related to the clinical question and study design, and we use this discussion to guide the reader to an improved comprehension of how to use systematic reviews in the context of evidence-based healthcare. Finally, we present some tools and resources to help professionals to search for qualified and preapraised evidence to inform their clinical decisions.

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

Access this chapter

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ, et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? Br Med J. 2008;336(7651):995–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Evidence-Based Medicine Working G. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. J Am Med Assoc. 1992;268(17):2420–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(42):17028–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Dyer O. University of Toronto researcher resigns over “systematic” data fraud. Br Med J. 2015;351:h6097.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McCarthy M. Former Duke University oncologist is guilty of research misconduct, US officials find. Br Med J. 2015;351:h6058.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. Br Med J. 2003;326(7400):1167–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:MR000033.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Abdel-Sattar M, Krauth D, Anglemyer A, Bero L. The relationship between risk of bias criteria, research outcomes, and study sponsorship in a cohort of preclinical thiazolidinedione animal studies: a meta-analysis. Evid Based Preclin Med. 2014;1(1):11–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. Can Med Assoc J. 1988;138(8):697–703.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bedenis R, Stewart M, Cleanthis M, Robless P, Mikhailidis DP, Stansby G. Cilostazol for intermittent claudication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10:CD003748.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Testing treatments: better research for better healthcare. 2nd ed. London: Pinter & Martin; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual. The systematic review of studies of diagnostic test accuracy [Internet]. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2015 [cited 11-04-2026]. http://www.joannabriggs.org/

  14. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. “The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence” [Internet]. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2011 [cited 11-04-2016]. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

  15. Strom BL, Kimmel SE, editors. Textbook of pharmacoepidemiology. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, Thompson WD. Methods in observational epidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. 432 p.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Crawford F, Chappell FM, Welch K, Andras A, Brittenden J. Ankle brachial index for the diagnosis of symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(8).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Naci H, Ioannidis JP. How good is “evidence” from clinical studies of drug effects and why might such evidence fail in the prediction of the clinical utility of drugs? Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015;55:169–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Information for consumers. The FDA’s drug review process: ensuring drugs are safe and effective [Internet]. United States: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2014 [cited 05-04-2016]. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm

  21. The drug development process. Step 3: clinical research [Internet]. United States: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2015 [cited 05-04-2016]. http://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals/Drugs/ucm405622.htm

  22. Duijnhoven RG, Straus SM, Raine JM, de Boer A, Hoes AW, De Bruin ML. Number of patients studied prior to approval of new medicines: a database analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A. Adverse effects (Chapter 14). In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

  24. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. Br Med J. 2004;328(7430):39–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dickersin K. Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind? Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):6–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;5(10):3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Campbell A, Price J, Hiatt WR. Omega-3 fatty acids for intermittent claudication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD003833.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Conway K, Dillon M, Evans J, Howells-Jones R, Price P, Harding KG, et al. A double-blinded, randomised study to determine the effect of omega-3-marine triglycerides on intermittent claudication. Yearbook 2005, The Vascular Society of Great Britain & Ireland; 2005:Abstract 86.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gans RO, Bilo HJ, Weersink EG, Rauwerda JA, Fonk T, Popp-Snijders C, et al. Fish oil supplementation in patients with stable claudication. Am J Surg. 1990;160(5):490–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. Br Med J. 2001;322(7300):1479–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. Br Med J. 2014;349:g6501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Loke YK, Derry S. Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials—a systematic survey. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2001;1:3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, Pilkington K, Hartling L, Joffe A, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. Br Med J. 2014;348:f7668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ioannidis JP. Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1737–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285(4):437–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Loke YK, Mattishent K. If nothing happens, is everything all right? Distinguishing genuine reassurance from a false sense of security. Can Med Assoc J. 2015;187(1):15–6.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, Ismaila AS, Santaguida P, Smith DH, et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):502–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chassany O, Michaux A, Bergmann JF. Drug-induced diarrhoea. Drug Saf. 2000;22(1):53–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Robinson S. NICE alerts GPs to drug-induced headaches. GP. 2012;26:12.

    Google Scholar 

  41. WHO. Atlas of headache disorders and resources in the world. In: Saxena S, Dua T, editors. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  42. WHO. Glossary of terms used in pharmaco vigilance 2011. http://www.who-umc.org/DynPage.aspx?id=22684. Accessed 20 Mar 2015.

  43. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. Br Med J. 1999;319(7206):358–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Gabbay J, le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. Br Med J. 2004;329(7473):1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Evidências em Saúde, Rua Tocaios 285 apto 102, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 30270-200, Brazil

    Daniela R. Junqueira B.Pharm., M.Sc., Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Daniela R. Junqueira B.Pharm., M.Sc., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela R. Junqueira B.Pharm., M.Sc., Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Vascular Surgery, Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Tulio Pinho Navarro

  2. Yale Univ School Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

    Alan Dardik

  3. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Daniela Junqueira

  4. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizone, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Ligia Cisneros

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Junqueira, D.R. (2017). How to Make Decisions in Healthcare?. In: Navarro, T., Dardik, A., Junqueira, D., Cisneros, L. (eds) Vascular Diseases for the Non-Specialist. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46059-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46059-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46057-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46059-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation