Signal versus noise in the evidence base for medicine: an alternative to hierarchies of evidence?

被引:35
作者
Edwards, AG [1 ]
Russell, LT [1 ]
Stott, NCH [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wales, Coll Med, Dept Gen Practice, Llandeyrn Hlth Ctr, Cardiff CF3 7PN, S Glam, Wales
关键词
evidence-based medicine; hierarchies of evidence; noise; randomized trials; signal;
D O I
10.1093/fampra/15.4.319
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Clinical practice frequently generates questions that are not easily answered by randomized trials. On conventional hierarchies of evidence, 'weaker' study designs are often more feasible. Also, much research is not well designed. Yet we still need to make best use of the available evidence. Systematic reviews must therefore address the danger of underestimating the evidence from relevant literature if it includes only that of a certain methodological quality. This would run the risk of missing or distorting the true message that the review is trying to identify. We propose a classification of research which does not reject studies on the basis of design alone, but recognizes the importance of assessing the message or 'signal' within each piece of research. It explicitly introduces judgement into the appraisal and synthesis of evidence, and affords more flexibility in attaching weight to evidence that might otherwise be lost. It includes an assessment of methodological quality, balancing this against the weight of its message, rather than rejecting studies which are below a certain threshold for quality. Fundamentally flawed research will still be rejected, but more commonly papers can still be used, tempering the importance that we attach to their signal by the amount of 'noise' around that signal. The balance of these two elements may be termed the 'signal to noise ratio'.
引用
收藏
页码:319 / 322
页数:4
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, UNDERTAKING SYSTEMAT
[2]   A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL [J].
CHALMERS, TC ;
SMITH, H ;
BLACKBURN, B ;
SILVERMAN, B ;
SCHROEDER, B ;
REITMAN, D ;
AMBROZ, A .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1981, 2 (01) :31-49
[3]   EFFECT OF INTERVENTIONS ON STAGE OF MAMMOGRAPHY ADOPTION [J].
CHAMPION, V ;
HUSTER, G .
JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 1995, 18 (02) :169-187
[4]   INSTRUMENTS FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF DRUG STUDIES PUBLISHED IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE [J].
CHO, MK ;
BERO, LA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 272 (02) :101-104
[5]  
COHN LD, 1995, PEDIATRICS, V95, P713
[6]   Analgesic efficacy and safety of paracetamol-codeine combinations versus paracetamol alone: A systematic review [J].
deCraen, AJM ;
DiGiulio, G ;
LampeSchoenmaeckers, AJEM ;
Kessels, AGH ;
Kleijnen, J .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1996, 313 (7053) :321-325
[7]   Outcome studies of brief alcohol intervention in general practice: the problem of lost subjects [J].
Edwards, AGK ;
Rollnick, S .
ADDICTION, 1997, 92 (12) :1699-1704
[8]   The health impact of worksite nutrition and cholesterol intervention programs [J].
Glanz, K ;
Sorensen, G ;
Farmer, A .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION, 1996, 10 (06) :453-470
[9]   How to read a paper: Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about) [J].
Greenhalgh, T .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7102) :243-246
[10]   USERS GUIDES TO THE MEDICAL LITERATURE .9. A METHOD FOR GRADING HEALTH-CARE RECOMMENDATIONS [J].
GUYATT, GH ;
SACKETT, DL ;
SINCLAIR, JC ;
HAYWARD, R ;
COOK, DJ ;
COOK, RJ .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (22) :1800-1804