ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
[Evidence-based versus expertise-based medicine in orthopedic and trauma surgery : There is nothing more practical than a good theory].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Perceived utility of the inclusion of physician assistants in the surgical process quality and continuing education in Germany : Results of an interprofessional online survey].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- [Evidence from O (orthopedics) and T (trauma surgery) with TraumaEvidence : Current research in a nutshell].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
About a quarter of a century after the introduction of the concept and principles of evidence-based medicine (EbM), some healthcare providers are still adamant that these are incompatible with knowledge gained through experience. Across the surgical disciplines, it is often argued EbM underestimates or neglects the importance of intuition and surgical skills. To put it bluntly, these assumptions are wrong and often characterized by a misunderstanding of the methodology of EbM. Even the best controlled trial cannot be properly interpreted or implemented without clinical reasoning; furthermore, clinicians of all disciplines are obligated to provide care according to the current state of scientific knowledge. In an era of revolutionary biomedical developments, exponential increase of research but incremental innovations, they must become familiar with pragmatic tools to appraise the validity and relevance of clinical study results, and to decide whether there is a need to adapt current beliefs and practices based on the new information. We herein use the recent example of a new medical device for the surgical treatment of rotator cuff tears and subacromial impingement syndrome to illustrate how important it is to interpret data in the context of a precise, answerable question and to combine clinical expertise with methodological principles offered by EbM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37222750What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.