Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Level 5: Evidence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research

Abstract

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often assigned the highest level of evidence within the EBM framework, not all RCTs are conducted the same way and consequently the results should be carefully scrutinized. Conclusions from RCTs are influenced by many potential confounding factors such as sample sizes, blinding, bias, statistical analysis, as well as the potential of type 1 error. Expert opinion and other level 5 methods are often seen as the first step in the evidence-based medicine hierarchy framework, from which more robust, comprehensive evidence-based medicine may be generated. By using expert opinion and consensus statements to develop an evidence base, practitioners can move beyond relying on their own experience and can avail on an accumulated experience of a larger cohort of practitioners in their respective field. Level 5 evidence may also facilitate the development of clinical practice guidelines or in assisting healthcare stakeholders with decision making, thus highlighting opportunities and areas for future research. Although at the lower end of the evidence-based medicine hierarchy, level 5 evidence methods have the added advantage of being feasible with limited resources where it may not be feasible to carry out randomized controlled trials, population surveys, or cohort studies.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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. Green LW. Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practice-based evidence? Fam Pract. 2008;25(Suppl 1):20–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Minas H, Jorm AFO. Where there is no evidence: use of expert consensus methods to fill the evidence gap in low-income countries and cultural minorities. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2010;4:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-4-33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Levine G, Jeong Y, Goto S, Anderson J, Huo Y, Mega J, Taubert K, Smith S. Expert consensus document: World Heart Federation expert consensus statement on antiplatelet therapy in East Asian patients with ACS or undergoing PCI. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014;11(10):597–606. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2014.104. Epub 2014 Aug 26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kwong JSW, Chen H, Sun X. Development of evidence-based recommendations: implications for preparing expert consensus statements. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016;129:2998–3000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kane RL. Creating practice guidelines: the dangers of over-reliance on expert judgment. J Law Med Ethics. 1995;23:62–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pacini D, Murana G, Leone A, Di Marco L, Pantaleo A. The value and limitations of guidelines, expert consensus, and registries on the management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;49(6):413–20. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2016.49.6.413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Echemendia RJ, Giza CC, Kutcher JS. Developing guidelines for return to play: consensus and evidence-based approaches. Brain Inj. 2015;29(2):185–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ. 2010;340:32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Developing clinical guidelines. West J Med. 1999;170(6):348–51.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hutchings A, Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N. A comparison of formal consensus methods used for developing clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(4):218–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:376–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the nominal group technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method. 2014;14:92–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Neill S, Watson PJ, Barry S. A Delphi study of risk factors for achilles tendinopathy- opinions of world tendon experts. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016;11(5):684–97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi survey: method techniques and applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. Indicators of the appropriateness of long term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom: consensus development, face and content validity, feasibility and reliability. Qual Health Care. 1998;7:130–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cassar Flores A, Marshall S, Cordina M. Use of the Delphi technique to determine safety features to be included in a neonatal and paediatric prescription chart. Int J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;36(6):1179–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chan A, Tan SH, Wong CM, Yap KY, Ko Y. Clinically significant drug–drug interactions between oral anticancer agents and nonanticancer agents: a Delphi survey of oncology pharmacists. Clin Ther. 2009;31(Pt 2):2379–86; 59(4):334–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;38:655.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jorm A. Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(10):887–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thangaratinam S, Redman CW. The Delphi technique. Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;7:120–5. https://doi.org/10.1576/toag.7.2.120.27071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Delbecq AL, van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. group techniques for program planning, a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman and Company: Glenview; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Aljamal M, Ashcroft DM, Tully MP. Development of indicators to assess the quality of medicines reconciliation at hospital admission: an e-Delphi study. Int J Pharm Pract. 2016;24(3):209–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cross H. Consensus methods: a bridge between clinical reasoning and clinical research? Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 2005;73(1):28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dening KH, Jones L, Sampson EL. Preferences for end-of-life care: a nominal group study of people with dementia and their family careers. Palliat Med. 2012;27(5):409–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sandrey MA, Bulger SM. The Delphi Method: an approach for facilitating evidence based practice in athletic training. Athl Train Educ J. 2008;3(4):135–42.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Gonsalves C, Wood TJ. Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research, Medical Teacher; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar

    Seán Mc Auliffe & Pieter D’Hooghe

  2. Aspire Zone, Doha, Qatar

    Seán Mc Auliffe & Pieter D’Hooghe

Authors
  1. Seán Mc Auliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pieter D’Hooghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pieter D’Hooghe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UPMC Rooney Sports Complex, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Volker Musahl

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jón Karlsson

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Laufen und Liestal), Bruderholz, Switzerland

    Michael T. Hirschmann

  4. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Olufemi R. Ayeni

  5. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Robert G. Marx

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Jason L. Koh

  7. Institute for Medical Science in Sports, Osaka Health Science University, Osaka, Japan

    Norimasa Nakamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mc Auliffe, S., D’Hooghe, P. (2019). Level 5: Evidence. In: Musahl, V., et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_35

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58253-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation