Upload
dionne
View
63
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Teaching Evidence-Based Medicine. Gary S Gronseth, MD, FAAN Professor of Neurology University of Kansas. To Teach EBM…. Explicitly Reason Exclude the unreasonable Distinguish opinion from principles Rate Evidence on a Hierarchy Understand two sources of error Love the 2 x 2 table - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
TeachingEvidence-Based Medicine
Gary S Gronseth, MD, FAANProfessor of NeurologyUniversity of Kansas
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion from principles
• Rate Evidence on a Hierarchy– Understand two sources of error– Love the 2 x 2 table
• Emphasize Evidence never enough– Apply to your patient– Incorporate patient values
A case…• A 58 year-old right-handed man suddenly
developed problems speaking, right lower facial weakness and right hand clumsiness. His symptoms slowly resolved over a week.
• He had a history of controlled HTN and no other risk factors.
• Head MRI: small left frontal infarct.• EKG: sinus rhythm. • MRA: no cranial artery stenosis. • Echocardiogram: PFO
The Physician’s Dilemma
To Close or Not to Close
Even if the answer is unknown, a decision must be made!
Clinical Reasoning
Close PFO?
“Where I trained”
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable
Clinical Reasoning
Close PFO?
Deceitful
“Closure of PFO in patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke is
the standard of care in the community.”
“The consequences of a second stroke are potentially devastating. PFO closure
is mandatory.”
Fallacious• Irrelevant• Rhetoric• Psychological appeal• Emotion-Driven• Persuasion
Patient
Intervention
Co-intervention
Outcome
Determining relevance:Define the question
For patients with cryptogenicstroke and PFO
does PFO closurevs no PFO closure
reduce the risk of the next stroke
Determining relevance:Define the question
Popular Appeal
“Closure of PFO in patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke is the standard of care in the community.”
Begging the Question
“The consequences of a second stroke are
potentially devastating. PFO closure is
mandatory.”
Irrelevant Outcomes
I’ll be sued.
I’ll be reimbursed
Deceitful
Fallacious
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable
Deceit
Close PFO?
Fallacy
Deceitful
Fallacious
Reasoned
Reasoned
•Relevant•Logical appeal•Data-Driven •Truth
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion from
principles
Principles
Close PFO?
Evidence
Judgment
Principles
Decision
Deductive InferenceFrom Principles
• The left side of the brain controls the right side of the body
• My patient can’t control the right side of his body
• My patient has a problem with the left side of his brain
Principles
Use a Parachute?
Principles
Close PFO?
PFO
• Fibrous adhesions fail to seal the atrial septum after birth
• Persistence of a potential shunt between the right and left atria of the heart
PFO might allow paradoxical embolism
• Small emboli normally filtered by lung without clinically important consequence
• In patients with PFO, emboli can travel to the brain and cause ischemic stroke
• Closing the PFO will prevent future strokes
Principles
Close PFO?
Reasoned•Relevant•Reason•Logical appeal•Data-Driven •Truth
Deduction(Principles)
Principles
Close PFO?
Evidence
• Bob had a stroke and PFO and wasn’t treated with closure, he had another stroke
• Jane has a stroke and PFO. We should treat her with closure to prevent another stroke.
• John had a stroke and PFO and was treated with closure, he didn’t have another stroke.
• Sue had a stroke and PFO and was treated with closure, she didn’t have another stroke.
Analogy and Inductive Inference
Evidence
What happened to
patients?
Principles
Close PFO?
Evidence
Reasoned•Relevant•Reason•Logical appeal•Data-Driven •Truth
Induction (Evidence)
Deduction(Principles)
Principles
Close PFO?
Evidence
Judgment
Best Guess
Opinion
Hypothesis
Reasoned•Relevant•Reason•Logical appeal•Data-Driven •Truth
Intuition(Judgment)
Induction (Evidence)
Deduction(Principles)
Distinguishing Opinion from Principles• Is there equipoise?
– Do reasonable people disagree?– Would an IRB approve a trial?– Is there an ongoing trial?
• Evidence separates judgment from principles
Principles
Close PFO?
Evidence
Judgment
Theory
Scientific Method
Experiment
Hypothesis
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion from
principles
Principles
Close PFO?
Evidence
Judgment
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion
from principles• Rate Evidence on a Hierarchy
Strong
Weak
• Jane has a stroke and PFO. We should treat her with closure to prevent another stroke.
• John had a stroke and PFO and was treated with closure, he didn’t have another stroke.
Strong
Weak
• Sue had a stroke and PFO and was treated with closure, she didn’t have another stroke.
• Bob had a stroke and PFO and wasn’t treated with closure, he had another stroke
Inferences from Evidence…
Are not valid or invalid
Are never certain
Strong
Weak
• Jane has a stroke and PFO. We should treat her with closure to prevent another stroke.
• John had a stroke and PFO and was treated with closure, he didn’t have another stroke.
Strong
Weak
• Sue had a stroke and PFO and was treated with closure, she didn’t have another stroke.
• Bob had a stroke and PFO and wasn’t treated with closure, he had another stroke
Informally recalled cases
Why is this a weak inference?
Inferences from informally recalled cases can mislead
• Too few cases• Selective recall: remember those
– That are more recent– With extreme results– That support our pre-conceptions
Experts are not immune to these limitations
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion from principles
• Rate Evidence on a Hierarchy– Understand two sources of error
• Often too few cases
• Selective recall: remember those– That are more recent– With extreme results– That support our pre-
conceptions
Two Sources of Error
Systematic
Bias
Random
Chance
Find More Cases
Retrospective Observational Sudy 2002 to 2010
Of all Stroke and PFO Cases: 319
Rats…I’m going to have to
start counting these cases
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion from principles
• Rate Evidence on a Hierarchy– Understand two sources of error– Love the 2 x 2 table
Relationships between variables
PFO Closure and Stroke
2 X 2 TableOutcome
Treatment No stroke
Stroke All
Closure 167
No Closure 152
Total 239 80 319
Expected if No RelationshipOutcome
Treatment No stroke
Stroke All
Closure 125 42 167
No Closure 114 38 152
Total 239 80 319
Expected if no RealtionshipOutcome
Treatment No stroke
Stroke All
Closure 75% 25% 100%
No Closure 75% 25% 100%
Total 75% 25% 100%
“Actual”Outcome
Treatment No stroke
Stroke All
Closure 150 17 167
No Closure 89 63 152
Total 239 80 319
“Actual”Outcome
Treatment No stroke
Stroke All
Closure 90% 10% 100%
No Closure 59% 41% 100%
Total 75% 25% 100%
2 X 2 TableOutcome
Treatment No stroke
Stroke All
Closure a b 167
No Closure c d 152
Total 239 80 319
Relative Risk stroke =b/(a+b)
d/(c+d)
Risk difference stroke = b/(a+b) - d/(c+d)
Measures of AssociationOutcome
Treatment No stroke
Stroke All
Closure a b 167
No Closure c d 152
Total 239 80 319
Measure of AssociationRelative Risk Stroke Outcome
Outcome
Treatment No stroke
Stroke
Closure 90% 10%
No Closure 59% 41% RR Stroke10/41 = 0.24
Cryptogenic stroke patients receiving Closure were 0.24 times less likely to have stroke.Therefore, I should offer my patients with
stroke and PFO Closure.
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion from
principles• Rate Evidence on a
Hierarchy– Understand two sources of
error– Love the 2 x 2 table
Random (Sampling) Error--Incorrect result from bad luck
Equally likely to be too high or too lowStatistical power/precision
--Measured by:
P-values (p < 0.001)
Confidence intervals RR 0.24: (95% confidence intervals 0.15 to 0.40)
Systematic Error
Incorrect results from poor study design or execution
More likely to be too high or too low
Risk of Bias Measured:
Semi-quantitatively
Class of Evidence
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.50.25
TruthMeasured
Our Study
+Cl
-Cl
Stroke No Stroke
Patients not receiving Closure were more often older, diabetic and hypertensive
Sometimes had to “guess” the outcome from the record.
Major Sources of Bias
+Cl
-Cl
Poor Good
Confounding
Misclassification
Lower Risk of BiasThe Randomized Masked Trial
+Cl
-Cl
Poor Good
R
Randomized Masked Trial
SingleCase Report
What is the risk of Bias?
Strong
Weak
Find the best evidenceSearch online databasesMEDLINE
There is insufficient evidence to
support or refute the benefit or
lack of harm of PFO closure.
Conclusion
Strong
Weak
Despite the weak evidence, a
decision must be made.
Decide
Strong
Weak
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion from
principles• Rate Evidence on a Hierarchy
– Understand two sources of error– Love the 2 x 2 table
• Emphasize Evidence never enough– Apply to your patient– Incorporate patient values Principles
Close PFO?
Evidence
Judgment
Induction is never certain
• Often the evidence is weak• Even when strong, the Evidence never
perfectly applies to your patient
• Explicitly consider how well the evidence applies to your patient
Incorporating patient values
Benefits Risks
Uncertainty
Know what is not Known
• If you fail to acknowledge the uncertainty and tell the patient we know that the PFO should or should not be closed…
• You have failed to distinguish opinion from principles. Principles
Close PFO
Evidence
Judgment
To Teach EBM…• Explicitly Reason
– Exclude the unreasonable– Distinguish opinion from
principles• Rate Evidence on a Hierarchy
– Understand two sources of error– Love the 2 x 2 table
• Emphasize Evidence never enough– Apply to your patient– Incorporate patient values Principles
Decision
Evidence
Judgment