Answering medical questions at the point of care: a cross-sectional study comparing rapid decisions based on PubMed and Epistemonikos searches with evidence-based recommendations developed with the GRADE approach.

INTRODUCTION: Using the best current evidence to inform clinical decisions remains a challenge for clinicians. Given the scarcity of trustworthy clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations to answer clinicians' daily questions, clinical decision support systems (ie, assistance in question identification and answering) emerge as an attractive alternative. The trustworthiness of the recommendations achieved by such systems is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trustworthiness of a question identification and answering system that delivers timely recommendations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We compared the responses to 100 clinical questions related to inpatient management provided by two rapid response methods with 'Gold Standard' recommendations. One of the rapid methods was based on PubMed and the other on Epistemonikos database. We defined our 'Gold Standard' as trustworthy published evidence-based recommendations or, when unavailable, recommendations developed locally by a panel of six clinicians following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Recommendations provided by the rapid strategies were classified as potentially misleading or reasonable. We also determined if the potentially misleading recommendations could have been avoided with the appropriate implementation of searching and evidence summary tools. RESULTS: We were able to answer all of the 100 questions with both rapid methods. Of the 200 recommendations obtained, 6.5% (95% CI 3% to 9.9%) were classified as potentially misleading and 93.5% (95% CI 90% to 96.9%) as reasonable. 6 of the 13 potentially misleading recommendations could have been avoided by the appropriate usage of the Epistemonikos matrix tool or by constructing summary of findings tables. No significant differences were observed between the evaluated rapid response methods. CONCLUSION: A question answering service based on the GRADE approach proved feasible to implement and provided appropriate guidance for most identified questions. Our approach could help stakeholders in charge of managing resources and defining policies for patient care to improve evidence-based decision-making in an efficient and feasible manner.

[How much can we trust health related information provided by mass media in Argentina?]. / ¿Cuán confiable es la información médica proporcionada por los medios de comunicación en Argentina?

To evaluate the certainty and accuracy of the healthcare information provided by the mass media in Argentina, a group of senior medical students, blind to the study objectives, identified healthcare related statements transmitted through mass media. These findings were challenged against the recommendations of a group of physicians trained in evidence-based decision making (EBDM). We compared the strength and direction of the mass media recommendations with those of experts on EBDM. Eighty one recommendations/questions were identified and answered by the experts on EBDM, 15 with high, 18 with moderate, 30 with low and 18 with very low quality of evidence. Only 53% (CI95% 42-64%) of the mass media recommendations agreed with the expert recommendation in direction (for or against) and 28% (CI95% 18-39%) were classified as inappropriate (significant discrepancies both in direction and strength). Subgroup analysis revealed that 71% (CI95% 56-86%) of there commendations made by professionals in mass media agreed with experts in direction and 17% (IC95% 6-33%) were classified as inappropriate, OR = 0.35 (CI95% 0.1-1.1) compared to recommendations in mass media by non-professionals. We conclude that the healthcare information provided by mass media in Argentina is unreliable; this fact can probably have a negative impact in the health system performance and physician-patient relationship.

¿Cuán confiable es la información médica proporcionada por los medios de comunicación en Argentina? / How much can we trust health related information provided by mass media in Argentina?

Para evaluar la confiabilidad y precisión de la información médica proporcionada por los medios de comunicación en Argentina, alumnos avanzados de medicina, que desconocían los objetivos del estudio, identificaron aseveraciones relacionadas a temas médicos transmitidas por medios de comunicación. Los hallazgos fueron contrastados con recomendaciones realizadas por médicos expertos en la toma de decisiones basada en evidencias. Las recomendaciones de los medios y las confeccionadas por los expertos fueron comparadas en relación a su fuerza y dirección. Se identificaron 81 recomendaciones/preguntas las que fueron contestadas por los expertos, 15 con alta, 18 con moderada, 30 con baja y 18 con muy baja calidad de evidencia. Solamente el 53% (IC95% 42-64%) de las recomendaciones hechas por los medios de comunicación coincidieron en la dirección (a favor o en contra de la intervención) con las realizadas por los expertos y el 28% (IC95% 18-39%) fueron calificadas como inadecuadas (diferencias significativas tanto en dirección como en fuerza). El análisis del subgrupo de recomendaciones realizadas en los medios por profesionales de la salud mostró una coincidencia en la dirección del 71% (IC95% 56-86%) con 17% (IC95% 6-33%) de recomendaciones inadecuadas, OR = 0.35 (IC95% 0.1-1.1) en relación a las no realizadas por profesionales de la salud. Se concluye que la información médica que proveen los medios de comunicación en Argentina es poco confiable, lo que posiblemente tenga un impacto negativo sobre el funcionamiento del sistema de salud y la relación de los médicos con sus pacientes.

To evaluate the certainty and accuracy of the healthcare information provided by the mass media in Argentina, a group of senior medical students, blind to the study objectives, identified healthcare related statements transmitted through mass media. These findings were challenged against the recommendations of a group of physicians trained in evidence-based decision making (EBDM). We compared the strength and direction of the mass media recommendations with those of experts on EBDM. Eighty one recommendations/questions were identified and answered by the experts on EBDM, 15 with high, 18 with moderate, 30 with low and 18 with very low quality of evidence. Only 53% (CI95% 42-64%) of the mass media recommendations agreed with the expert recommendation in direction (for or against) and 28% (CI95% 18-39%) were classified as inappropriate (significant discrepancies both in direction and strength). Subgroup analysis revealed that 71% (CI95% 56-86%) of there commendations made by professionals in mass media agreed with experts in direction and 17% (IC95% 6-33%) were classified as inappropriate, OR = 0.35 (CI95% 0.1-1.1) compared to recommendations in mass media by non-professionals. We conclude that the healthcare information provided by mass media in Argentina is unreliable; this fact can probably have a negative impact in the health system performance and physician-patient relationship.

Inequality as a Powerful Predictor of Infant and Maternal Mortality around the World.

BACKGROUND: Maternal and infant mortality are highly devastating, yet, in many cases, preventable events for a community. The human development of a country is a strong predictor of maternal and infant mortality, reflecting the importance of socioeconomic factors in determinants of health. Previous research has shown that the Human Development Index (HDI) predicts infant mortality rate (IMR) and the maternal mortality ratio (MMR). Inequality has also been shown to be associated with worse health in certain populations. The main purpose of the present study was to determine the correlation and predictive power of the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) as a measure of inequality with the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR), Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR), Early Neonatal Mortality Rate (ENMR), Late Neonatal Mortality Rate (LNMR), and the Post Neonatal Mortality Rate (PNMR). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data for the present study were downloaded from two sources: infant and maternal mortality data were downloaded from the Global Burden of Disease 2013 Cause of Death Database and the Human Development Index (HDI) and Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) data were downloaded from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Pearson correlation coefficients were estimated, following logarithmic transformations to the data, to examine the relationship between HDI and IHDI with MMR, IMR, ENMR, LNMR, and PNMR. Steiger's Z test for the equality of two dependent correlations was utilized in order to determine whether the HDI or IHDI was more strongly associated with the outcome variables. Lastly, we constructed OLS regression models in order to determine the predictive power of the HDI and IHDI in terms of the MMR, IMR, ENMR, LNMR, and PNMR. Maternal and infant mortality were both strongly and negatively correlated with both HDI and IHDI; however, Steiger's Z test for the equality of two dependent correlations revealed that IHDI was more strongly correlated than HDI with MMR (Z = 4.897, p < 0.001), IMR (Z = 2.524, p = 0.012), ENMR (Z = 2.936, p = 0.003), LNMR (Z = 2.272, p = 0.023), and PNMR (Z = 2.277, p = 0.023). Furthermore, side-by-side OLS regression models revealed that, when IHDI was used as the predictor variable instead of HDI, the R2 value was 0.053 higher for MMR, 0.025 higher for IMR, 0.038 higher for ENMR, 0.029 higher for LNMR, and 0.026 higher for PNMR. CONCLUSIONS: Even when both the HDI and the IHDI correlate with the infant and maternal mortality rates, the IHDI is a better predictor for these two health indicators. Therefore, these results add more evidence that inequality is playing an important role in determining the health status of various populations in the world and more efforts should be put into programs to fight inequality.

Impact of a GRADE-based medical question answering system on physician behaviour: a randomised controlled trial.

Physicians are frequently faced with questions related to their patients' care that they cannot answer. A vast number of randomised trials have tested a wide variety of behaviour-changing strategies designed to improve practitioners' evidence utilisation, but systematic reviews have concluded that the effects are generally small and inconsistent. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to determine whether a question identification and solving system, using structured evidence summaries with recommendations, would change physician's behavior related to the care of their hospitalised patients. The trial was conducted at the secondary level, internal medicine ward. Relevant clinical questions were the units of randomisation; 14 clinicians participated in the study. The question identification and answering system was carried out using evidence summaries with recommendations based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach stressing influence on clinician behaviour (decision/recommendation concordance). During 131 morning reports, 553 questions were identified (4.2 questions per meeting). 398 were excluded because they were not about diagnostic or therapeutic interventions or because their answers could not have impact on clinician behaviour, and 31 were excluded because of lack of time to answer them, leaving 124 included questions. The proportion of clinical decisions concordant with the proposed recommendations was 79%in the intervention arm and 44% in the control arm: relative risk 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.4), number of evidence summaries needed to change a care decision for one question raised was 3 (95% CI 2 to 6). A question identification and answering system was feasible, effectively performed and significantly influenced clinician behaviour related to the care of hospitalised patients, which suggests that interventions facilitating accessibility and interpretability of the best available evidence at the point of care have the potential to significantly impact on the quality of healthcare.

[Ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome. Explaining the inexplicable]. / Ticagrelor en el síndrome coronario agudo. Explicando lo inexplicable.

The PLATO study evaluated the efficacy of adding ticagrelor, instead of clopidogrel, to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome, which showed surprisingly positive results making the drug acceptable to regulatory agencies and specialty societies worldwide. Notwithstanding the aforementioned success, contradictory information supplied by critical analysis was submitted by the sponsor. The controversial findings revealed several aspects that are difficult to explain, threatening the veracity of the study's conclusions. Mortality rate pattern, excessive benefit not comparable to prior studies, unexplained loss of follow-up development and inconsistency in findings in accordance with the country, the type of events arbitrator and monitoring committee are some of the most questionable issues. Dubious reaction to this trial is based on the fact that the information could not be found in published articles. This complex situation poses a challenge to the critical analysis of the text and raises questions as to how far the conflicts of financial interest influenced the development of the study, the communication of its results and probably, acceptance of the drug for commercial use.

Ticagrelor en el síndrome coronario agudo. Explicando lo inexplicable / [Ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome. Explaining the inexplicable]

The PLATO study evaluated the efficacy of adding ticagrelor, instead of clopidogrel, to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome, which showed surprisingly positive results making the drug acceptable to regulatory agencies and specialty societies worldwide. Notwithstanding the aforementioned success, contradictory information supplied by critical analysis was submitted by the sponsor. The controversial findings revealed several aspects that are difficult to explain, threatening the veracity of the study’s conclusions. Mortality rate pattern, excessive benefit not comparable to prior studies, unexplained loss of follow-up development and inconsistency in findings in accordance with the country, the type of events arbitrator and monitoring committee are some of the most questionable issues. Dubious reaction to this trial is based on the fact that the information could not be found in published articles. This complex situation poses a challenge to the critical analysis of the text and raises questions as to how far the conflicts of financial interest influenced the development of the study, the communication of its results and probably, acceptance of the drug for commercial use.

Ticagrelor en el síndrome coronario agudo. Explicando lo inexplicable. / [Ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome. Explaining the inexplicable].

The PLATO study evaluated the efficacy of adding ticagrelor, instead of clopidogrel, to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome, which showed surprisingly positive results making the drug acceptable to regulatory agencies and specialty societies worldwide. Notwithstanding the aforementioned success, contradictory information supplied by critical analysis was submitted by the sponsor. The controversial findings revealed several aspects that are difficult to explain, threatening the veracity of the studys conclusions. Mortality rate pattern, excessive benefit not comparable to prior studies, unexplained loss of follow-up development and inconsistency in findings in accordance with the country, the type of events arbitrator and monitoring committee are some of the most questionable issues. Dubious reaction to this trial is based on the fact that the information could not be found in published articles. This complex situation poses a challenge to the critical analysis of the text and raises questions as to how far the conflicts of financial interest influenced the development of the study, the communication of its results and probably, acceptance of the drug for commercial use.