Project description:The evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement is stepping up its efforts to assess medical artificial intelligence (AI) and data science studies. Since 2017, there has been a marked increase in the number of published systematic reviews that assess medical AI studies. Increasingly, data from observational studies are used in systematic reviews of medical AI studies. Assessment of risk of bias is especially important in medical AI studies to detect possible "AI bias".

| S-EPMC9238033 | biostudies-literature

Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC509050 | biostudies-literature

Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 5. The effect of spectrum of disease on the performance of diagnostic tests.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC1188226 | biostudies-literature

The learners' perceptions survey-primary care: assessing resident perceptions of internal medicine continuity clinics and patient-centered care.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) implemented a national patient-centered care initiative that organized primary care into interdisciplinary teams of health care professionals to provide patient-centered, continuous, and coordinated care. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the discriminate validity of the Learners' Perceptions Survey-Primary Care (LPS-PC), a tool designed to measure residents' perceptions about their primary and patient-centered care experiences. METHODS: Between October 2010 and June 2011, the LPS-PC was administered to Loma Linda University Medical Center internal medicine residents assigned to continuity clinics at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (VALLHCS), a university setting, or the county hospital. Adjusted differences in satisfaction ratings across settings and over domains (patient- and family-centered care, faculty and preceptors, learning, clinical, work and physical environments, and personal experience) were computed using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Our response rate was 86% (77 of 90). Residents were more satisfied with patient- and family-centered care at the VALLHCS than at either the university or county (P < .001). However, faculty and preceptors (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53), physical (OR = 1.29), and learning (OR = 1.28) environments had more impact on overall resident satisfaction than patient- and family-centered care (OR = 1.08). CONCLUSIONS: The LPS-PC demonstrated discriminate validity to assess residents' perceptions of their patient-centered clinical training experience across outpatient primary care settings at an internal medicine residency program. The largest difference in scores was the patient- and family-centered care domain, in which residents rated the VALLHCS much higher than the university or county sites.

| S-EPMC3886456 | biostudies-other

Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews in the pediatric population. We also examined whether there were differences in the quality of reports of a subset of CAM reviews compared to reviews using conventional interventions.MethodsWe assessed the quality of reports of 47 CAM systematic reviews and 19 reviews evaluating a conventional intervention. The quality of each report was assessed using a validated 10-point scale.ResultsAuthors were particularly good at reporting: eligibility criteria for including primary studies, combining the primary studies for quantitative analysis appropriately, and basing their conclusions on the data included in the review. Reviewers were weak in reporting: how they avoided bias in the selection of primary studies, and how they evaluated the validity of the primary studies. Overall the reports achieved 43% (median = 3) of their maximum possible total score. The overall quality of reporting was similar for CAM reviews and conventional therapy ones.ConclusionsEvidence based health care continues to make important contributions to the well being of children. To ensure the pediatric community can maximize the potential use of these interventions, it is important to ensure that systematic reviews are conducted and reported at the highest possible quality. Such reviews will be of benefit to a broad spectrum of interested stakeholders.

| S-EPMC99047 | biostudies-literature

Assessing Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects: Are Authors Misinterpreting Their Results?

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether investigations of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are prespecified and whether authors' interpretations of their analyses are consistent with the objective evidence.Data sources/study settingTrials published in Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine in 1994, 1999, and 2004.Study designWe reviewed 87 RCTs that reported formal tests for statistical interaction or heterogeneity (HTE analyses), derived from a probability sample of 541 articles.Data collection/extractionWe recorded reasons for performing HTE analysis; an objective classification of evidence for HTE (termed "clinicostatistical divergence" [CSD]); and authors' interpretations of findings. Authors' interpretations, compared with CSD, were coded as understated, overstated, or adequately stated.Principle findingsFifty-three RCTs (61 percent) claimed prespecified covariates for HTE analyses. Trials showed strong (6), moderate (11), weak (25), or negligible (16) evidence for CSD (29 could not be classified due to inadequate information). Authors stated that evidence for HTE was sufficient to support differential treatment in subgroups (10); warranted more research (31); was absent (21); or provided no interpretation (25). HTE was overstated in 22 trials, adequately stated in 57 trials, and understated in 8 trials.ConclusionsInconsistencies in performance and reporting may limit the potential of HTE analysis as a tool for identifying HTE and individualizing care in diverse populations. Recommendations for future studies on the reporting and interpretation of HTE analyses are provided.

| S-EPMC2813449 | biostudies-literature

Tips for teachers of evidence-based medicine: making sense of diagnostic test results using likelihood ratios.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC2173935 | biostudies-literature

Literature Reviews: Key Considerations and Tips From Knowledge Synthesis Librarians.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8848885 | biostudies-literature