PubMed · 14569548
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Pamela E Windle. 2003. Understanding evidence-based practice.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1089-9472(03)00186-2
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Research on bias in clinical trials may help identify some of the reasons why investigators sometimes reach the wrong conclusions about intervention effects. Several quality components for the assessment of bias control have been suggested, but although they seem intrinsically valid, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate their effects on the extent and direction of bias. This narrative review summarizes the findings of methodological studies on the influence of bias in clinical trials. A number of methodological studies suggest that lack of adequate randomization in published trial reports may be associated with more positive estimates of intervention effects. The influence of double-blinding and follow-up is less clear. Several studies have found a significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions. However, the methodological studies also show that bias is difficult to detect and appraise. The extent of bias in individual trials is unpredictable. A-priori exclusion of trials with certain characteristics is not recommended. Appraising bias control in individual trials is necessary to avoid making incorrect conclusions about intervention effects.
Progress in mental health services has been made incrementally in a sequence of policy steps. In recent years, in spite of political conservatism, progressive changes have advanced new principles of service delivery. Reports from the surgeon general and the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health advanced these principles, including recovery and evidence-based practices. Both of these high-level reports were influenced by the findings of the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT). The Schizophrenia PORT established the effectiveness of mental health treatments and supports, which provided a scientific foundation for the optimistic focus on recovery and its expectation of improved outcomes for individuals with severe mental disorders. The PORT study also established the gap between treatment recommendations and actual services. Concern about this gap has motivated efforts to transform services by implementing evidence-based practices. Advances in broad mental health and social policy, coupled with continued advances in science, have the potential to improve the care of individuals who experience severe mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.
Evidence from randomized trials and systematic reviews provides the highest level of evidence from which to make clinical decisions. There are over 340 Cochrane reviews and protocols in pregnancy and childbirth; these provide the best single source of evidence for care of pregnant women and their babies, and highlight further research priorities. The challenges to health professionals are to ensure that the Cochrane reviews are prepared, kept up to date, and used in clinical care, and where relevant reliable evidence is not available to ensure that high-quality randomized trials are promptly conducted.