• Vassyl A. Lonchyna
Part of the Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach book series (DDSURGERY)


 Evidence based medicine (EBM) consists of identifying a clinical problem or question, doing a focused search in the literature for relevant studies, choosing the most pertinent studies, and critically evaluating them for guidance as to the right answer to the initial clinical question. This is a volume that is dependent upon evidence-based data to support the difficult decisions made in the course of treating critically ill patients in the ICU. The authors were tasked with developing their chapter themes by structuring the questions to be asked according to the PICO (Patients of interest, the Intervention that was applied, Comparator patients with similar conditions but treated differently, and Outcomes of interest) model.


  1. 1.
    Clayton M. Leonardo da Vinci. The anatomy of man. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1992. p. 130.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robicsek F. Leonardo da Vinci and the sinuses of Valsalva. Ann Thorac Surg. 1991;52:328–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Isaacson W. Leonardo da Vinci. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2017. p. 419.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prasad VK, Cifu AS. Ending medical reversal. Improving outcomes, saving lives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Wallenborn WM. George Washington’s terminal illness: a modern medical analysis of the last illness and death of George Washington. 1999. The Washington Papers. Accessed 18 Jan 2016.
  8. 8.
    Greenstone G. The history of bloodletting. BC Med J. 2010;52:12–4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davies NE, Davies GH, William Corbett SE. Benjamin Rush and the death of General Washington. JAMA. 1983;249:912–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas DP. The demise of bloodletting. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2014;44:72–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Osler W. Principles and practice of medicine. 1st ed. London/New York: Appleton & Co.; 1892. p. 530.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nydegger JA. The last illness of George Washington. Med Rec. 1917;92:1128.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    PICO Model. The University of Illinois at Chicago’s Library of the Health Sciences at Peoria. Accessed 15 Mar 2017.
  14. 14.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The organizations from 19 countries around the world that have endorsed or are using GRADE. The GRADE working group Accessed 23 Aug 2018.
  16. 16.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ. What is quality of evidence and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, Schunemann HJ. GRADE: going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1049–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schunemann AHJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke, Vist GE, Williams JW, Kunz R, Craig J, Montori VM, Bossuyt P, Guyatt GH. GRADE: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336:1106–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Jaeschke R, Helmand M, Liberati A, Vist GE, Schunemann HJ. GRADE: Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1170–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roman BR. On marginal health care – probability inflation and the tragedy of the commons. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:572–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vassyl A. Lonchyna
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations