EBM vs. EBM

Combining evidence-based and experienced-based medicine in resuscitation research

Paul E. Pepe, Tom P. Aufderheide

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Purpose of review To discuss the clear rationale for evidence-based medicine (EvBM) in the challenging realms of resuscitation research, yet also provide case examples in which even the well designed, multicentered randomized clinical trial may have had unrecognized limitations, and thus misleading results. This is where experienced-based medicine (ExBM) helps to resolve the issue. Recent findings Recent publications have brought to task the conclusions drawn from various clinical trials of resuscitative interventions. These articles have indicated that some major clinical trials that later determined the universal guidelines for resuscitative protocols may have been affected by unrecognized confounding variables, effect modifiers and other problems such as delayed timing. Many interventions, deemed to be ineffective because of these study factors, may actually have lifesaving effects that would have been confirmed had the proper circumstances been in place. With the right mindset, the clinician-researcher can often identify and address those situations. Summary When clinical trials indicate ineffectiveness of an intervention that worked very well in other circumstances, both preclinical and clinical, clinician-investigators should continue to re-search the issues and not always take conclusions at face value.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)199-203
Number of pages5
JournalCurrent Opinion in Critical Care
Volume23
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Resuscitation
Medicine
Clinical Trials
Research
Research Personnel
Confounding Factors (Epidemiology)
Evidence-Based Medicine
Randomized Controlled Trials
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Amiodarone
  • Cardiac arrest
  • Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • Chest compressions
  • Clinical trials
  • CPR
  • Epinephrine
  • Evidence based medicine
  • Impedance threshold device
  • Research
  • Resuscitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

EBM vs. EBM : Combining evidence-based and experienced-based medicine in resuscitation research. / Pepe, Paul E.; Aufderheide, Tom P.

In: Current Opinion in Critical Care, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2017, p. 199-203.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{cb8c50f2b3804f509ba70b934ae0c49d,
title = "EBM vs. EBM: Combining evidence-based and experienced-based medicine in resuscitation research",
abstract = "Purpose of review To discuss the clear rationale for evidence-based medicine (EvBM) in the challenging realms of resuscitation research, yet also provide case examples in which even the well designed, multicentered randomized clinical trial may have had unrecognized limitations, and thus misleading results. This is where experienced-based medicine (ExBM) helps to resolve the issue. Recent findings Recent publications have brought to task the conclusions drawn from various clinical trials of resuscitative interventions. These articles have indicated that some major clinical trials that later determined the universal guidelines for resuscitative protocols may have been affected by unrecognized confounding variables, effect modifiers and other problems such as delayed timing. Many interventions, deemed to be ineffective because of these study factors, may actually have lifesaving effects that would have been confirmed had the proper circumstances been in place. With the right mindset, the clinician-researcher can often identify and address those situations. Summary When clinical trials indicate ineffectiveness of an intervention that worked very well in other circumstances, both preclinical and clinical, clinician-investigators should continue to re-search the issues and not always take conclusions at face value.",
keywords = "Amiodarone, Cardiac arrest, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Chest compressions, Clinical trials, CPR, Epinephrine, Evidence based medicine, Impedance threshold device, Research, Resuscitation",
author = "Pepe, {Paul E.} and Aufderheide, {Tom P.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1097/MCC.0000000000000413",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "199--203",
journal = "Current Opinion in Critical Care",
issn = "1070-5295",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - EBM vs. EBM

T2 - Combining evidence-based and experienced-based medicine in resuscitation research

AU - Pepe, Paul E.

AU - Aufderheide, Tom P.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Purpose of review To discuss the clear rationale for evidence-based medicine (EvBM) in the challenging realms of resuscitation research, yet also provide case examples in which even the well designed, multicentered randomized clinical trial may have had unrecognized limitations, and thus misleading results. This is where experienced-based medicine (ExBM) helps to resolve the issue. Recent findings Recent publications have brought to task the conclusions drawn from various clinical trials of resuscitative interventions. These articles have indicated that some major clinical trials that later determined the universal guidelines for resuscitative protocols may have been affected by unrecognized confounding variables, effect modifiers and other problems such as delayed timing. Many interventions, deemed to be ineffective because of these study factors, may actually have lifesaving effects that would have been confirmed had the proper circumstances been in place. With the right mindset, the clinician-researcher can often identify and address those situations. Summary When clinical trials indicate ineffectiveness of an intervention that worked very well in other circumstances, both preclinical and clinical, clinician-investigators should continue to re-search the issues and not always take conclusions at face value.

AB - Purpose of review To discuss the clear rationale for evidence-based medicine (EvBM) in the challenging realms of resuscitation research, yet also provide case examples in which even the well designed, multicentered randomized clinical trial may have had unrecognized limitations, and thus misleading results. This is where experienced-based medicine (ExBM) helps to resolve the issue. Recent findings Recent publications have brought to task the conclusions drawn from various clinical trials of resuscitative interventions. These articles have indicated that some major clinical trials that later determined the universal guidelines for resuscitative protocols may have been affected by unrecognized confounding variables, effect modifiers and other problems such as delayed timing. Many interventions, deemed to be ineffective because of these study factors, may actually have lifesaving effects that would have been confirmed had the proper circumstances been in place. With the right mindset, the clinician-researcher can often identify and address those situations. Summary When clinical trials indicate ineffectiveness of an intervention that worked very well in other circumstances, both preclinical and clinical, clinician-investigators should continue to re-search the issues and not always take conclusions at face value.

KW - Amiodarone

KW - Cardiac arrest

KW - Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

KW - Chest compressions

KW - Clinical trials

KW - CPR

KW - Epinephrine

KW - Evidence based medicine

KW - Impedance threshold device

KW - Research

KW - Resuscitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017466069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017466069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000413

DO - 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000413

M3 - Review article

VL - 23

SP - 199

EP - 203

JO - Current Opinion in Critical Care

JF - Current Opinion in Critical Care

SN - 1070-5295

IS - 3

ER -