Skip to main content

Principles and Problems of Assessing the Results of Medical Treatment

  • Conference paper
Risk Control and Quality Management in Neurosurgery

Part of the book series: Acta Neurochirurgica Supplements ((NEUROCHIRURGICA,volume 78))

  • 138 Accesses

Summary

The integration of clinical expertise with the best available evidence from systematic research is the foundation of evidence-based medicine (EBM). The results from a well-designed randomised controlled trial (RCT) is regarded as the best evidence on which to base treatment. In neurosurgical practice fewer treatments are based on the results of RCTs than in medical practice. The reasons are historical, ethical, practical and can be compounded by the surgical learning curve. In neurosurgical practice treatment protocols and surgical indications vary widely. In addition there is a lack of patient orientated, disease specific and generic outcome measures.

However, it is a neurosurgical responsibility to provide hierarchi cal evidence upon which treatment can be based. Comparative audit may offer a solution provided there is high quality data collection, relevant measures of outcome, a defined case-mix and a representa tive population. Comparative audit can produce bias but neuro surgeons will need to meet the challenge of EBM. Their patients will expect it.

However, it is a neurosurgical responsibility to provide hierarchical evidence upon which treatment can be based. Comparative audit may offer a solution provided there is hign quality data collection, relevant measures of outcome, a defined case-mix and a representative population. Comparative audit can produce bias but neurosurgeons will need to meet the challenge of EBM. Their patients will expect it.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bero L & Rennie D (1995) The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 274(24): 1935–1938

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Bain C (1998) Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Ass 2: 13

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chalmers I, Sackett D, Silagy C (1997) The Cochrane Collaboration. In: Maynard A, Chalmers I (eds) Non-random reflections on health service research: on the 25th anniversary of Archie Cochrane’s effectiveness and efficiency. BMJ, London, pp 231–249

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cowan FM (1999) Evidence-based medicine: an overview. Int J STD & AIDS 10: 5–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett DL, Smith R (1995) Evidence based medicine BMJ 310: 1085–1086

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis AD, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB (1995) Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 274: 700–705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence 263: 1385–1389

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodman NW (1999) Who will challenge evidence-based medicine? J R Coll Physic Lond 33: 249–251

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerszten PC (1998) Outcomes research: a review. Neurosurgery 43: 1146–1156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McCulloch P (2000) Evidence-based surgery. Surgery 18: 205–208

    Google Scholar 

  11. Reeves B, Emberton M (1999) Tackling the quality agenda in surgery: taking comparative audit into the next century. Ann R Coll Surg Eng [Suppl] 81: 138–143

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312: 71–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Stern JM, Simes JR (1997) Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315: 640–645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Wien

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lang, D.A., Neil-Dwyer, G. (2001). Principles and Problems of Assessing the Results of Medical Treatment. In: Steiger, HJ., Uhl, E. (eds) Risk Control and Quality Management in Neurosurgery. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplements, vol 78. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6237-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6237-8_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-7275-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-6237-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics