Advertisement

Evidence Hierarchy

  • Colin Ng
  • Umberto Benedetto
Chapter

Abstract

Decision-making requires a delicate balance between values, expertise, resources and knowledge. Evidence is the objective dimension of knowledge which can be exploited for decision-making. As the human brain complexity is quite evident, so are evident the complexity and multifaceted feature of evidence informing decision-making in clinical medicine as well as in many different fields of humanity. In particular different sources of evidence can be identified, from less robust, precise and accurate to others which are more robust, more precise and more accurate. Yet, there is a continuum in the hierarchy of evidence, and it would be naïve to think that less formal sources of evidence should be disregarded altogether in comparison to more established and robust ones (i.e. randomised controlled trials). Similarly, other layers of evidence on top of randomised trials can be envisioned going to systematic reviews, to meta-analyses and to umbrella reviews. Only the explicit and conscientious integration of such multiple sources of evidence in a unifying framework can lead to effective and efficient decision-making.

Keywords

Decision-making Evidence-based medicine Hierarchy of evidence Systematic review Umbrella review 

References

  1. 1.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ. User’s guide to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burneo JG, Demaerschalk BM, Jenkins ME. Neurology: an evidence-based approach. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychol Rev. 1996;103:582–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldner JA. Metoprolol-induced visual hallucinations: a case series. J Med Case Rep. 2012;6:65.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mann CJ. Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J. 2003;20:54–60.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ. User’s guide to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. London: AMA; 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Montori VM, Smieja M, Guyatt GH. Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000;75:1284–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biondi-Zoccai G, Abbate A, Benedetto U, Palmerini T, D’Ascenzo F, Frati G. Network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis: what is it and why is it posed to dominate cardiovascular decision making? Int J Cardiol. 2015;182C:309–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biondi-Zoccai G, editor. Network meta-analysis: evidence synthesis with mixed treatment comparison. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers; 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cardiac SurgeryYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Cardiothoracic DepartmentJohn Radcliff Hospital, Oxford University HospitalOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations