MEDLINE

Abstract: The role and limitations of retrospective investigations of factors possibly associated with the occurrence of a disease are discussed and their relationship to forward-type studies emphasized. Examples of situations in which misleading associations could arise through the use of inappropriate control groups are presented. The possibility of misleading associations may be minimized by controlling or matching on factors which could produce such associations; the statistical analysis will then be modified. Statistical methodology is presented for analyzing retrospective study data, including chi-square measures of statistical significance of the observed association between the disease and the factor under study, and measures for interpreting the association in terms of an increased relative risk of disease. An extension of the chi-square test to the situation where data are subclassified by factors controlled in the analysis is given. A summary relative risk formula, R, is presented and discussed in connection with the problem of weighting the individual subcategory relative risks according to their importance or their precision. Alternative relative-risk formulas, R I , R2, Ra, and R4/ which require the calculation of subcategory-adjusted proportions ot the study factor among diseased persons and controls for the computation of relative risks, are discussed. While these latter formulas may be useful in many instances, they may be biased or inconsistent and are not, in fact, overages of the relative risks observed in the separate subcategories. Only the relative-risk formula, R, of those presented, can be viewed as such an average. The relationship of the matched-sample method to the subclassification approach is indicated. The statistical methodolo~y presented is illustrated with examples from a study of women with epidermoid and undifferentiated pulmonary ccrclnomc.e-J. Nat. Cancer Inst, 22: 719748, 1959.

Abstract: It's about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence Evidence based medicine, whose philosophical origins extend back to mid-19th century Paris and earlier, remains a hot topic for clinicians, public health practitioners, purchasers, planners, and the public. There are now frequent workshops in how to practice and teach it (one sponsored by the BMJ will be held in London on 24 April); undergraduate1 and postgraduate2 training programmes are incorporating it3 (or pondering how to do so); British centres for evidence based practice have been established or planned in adult medicine, child health, surgery, pathology, pharmacotherapy, nursing, general practice, and dentistry; the Cochrane Collaboration and Britain's Centre for Review and Dissemination in York are providing systematic reviews of the effects of health care; new evidence based practice journals are being launched; and it has become a common topic in the lay media. But enthusiasm has been mixed with some negative reaction.4 5 6 Criticism has ranged from evidence based medicine being old hat to it being a dangerous innovation, perpetrated by the arrogant to serve cost cutters and suppress clinical freedom. As evidence based medicine continues to evolve and adapt, now is a useful time to refine the discussion of what it is and what it is not. Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The …

Abstract: Guidelines are inconsistent in how they rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. This article explores the advantages of the GRADE system, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide

Abstract: I write in reference to the recently updated and circulated “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes,” in particular part II, “Screening for Diabetes,” which were recently updated and published in the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2006 Clinical Practice Recommendations (1). I would like to take issue with the use of the phrase “standards of medical care in diabetes,” which is used to …

Abstract: In 1965, Austin Bradford Hill published the article "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. In the article, Hill describes nine criteria to determine if an environmental factor, especially a condition or hazard in a work environment, causes an illness. The article arose from an inaugural presidential address Hill gave at the 1965 meeting of the Section of Occupational Medicine of the Royal Society of Medicine in London, England. The criteria he established in the article became known as the Bradford Hill criteria and the medical community refers to them when determining whether an environmental condition causes an illness. The criteria outlined in "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" help identify the causes of many diseases, including cancers of the reproductive system.