Abstract
Medicine is built on a foundation of scientific breakthrough, with constant change; a physician practicing for even a few years can appreciate this change. Incorporating the knowledge gained from research into clinical practice, however, is inherently difficult. Historically, it can take many years for medicine to adopt change [1]. This fact is not surprising, as research must be replicated and validated. Yet even validated clinical guidelines can take many years to be widely adopted. The number of clinical trials, clinical summaries, and clinical guidelines produced each year continues to increase [2], and physicians in any specialty can feel overwhelmed with the volume of information. Family physicians who care for the undifferentiated patient can feel that the task of analyzing information in the primary care literature and also multiple specialty areas is insurmountable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Morris S, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104:510–20.
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS One. 2010;7(9), e1000326.
Sackett DL, et al. Evidence based practice: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–2.
Shuval K, et al. Association between primary care physicians’ evidence-based medicine knowledge and quality of care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2010;22(1):16–23.
Guyatt G, et al., editors. Users’ guide to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Education; 2008.
Shaughnessy AF. Evaluating and understanding articles about treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2009;79(8):668–70.
Ebell MH, Barry HC, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. Finding POEMs in the medical literature. J Fam Pract. 1999;48(5):350–5.
Risk and Prevention Study Collaborative Group, Roncaglioni MC, Tombesi M, Avanzini F, Barlera S, Caimi V, Longoni P, Marzona I, Milani V, Silletta MG, et al. n-3 Fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1800–8.
Humphrey LL, Deffebach M, Pappas M, Baumann C, Artis K, Priest Mitchell JP, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:411–20.
Giamcomini M, Cook D. User’s guides to the medical literature XXIII. JAMA. 2000;284:478–82.
Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF, Bennett JH. Becoming a medical information master: feeling good about not knowing everything. J Fam Pract. 1994;38:505–13.
Online Clinical Texts include Up to Date: www.uptodate.com, Essential Evidence Plus: www.essentialevidenceplus.com, First Consult: www.clinicalkey.com, and American College of Physicians Smart Medicine: www.acponline.org/clinical_information/smart_medicine
Institute of Medicine. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(1):59–67.
Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69(3):548–56.
Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. Meta-analysis: its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75(6):431–9.
Slawson DC, Reed SW. Finding high-quality review articles. Am J Fam Pract. 2009;79(10):875–7.
Charles C, Gafna A, Whealan T. Shared decision making in the medical encounter. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92.
Brom L, et al. Medical informatics and decision making. BMC. 2014;14:25.
Sheridan S, Harris R, Woolf S. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention: a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):56–66.
Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Mak. 2014;pii:0272989X14551638. [Epub ahead of print].
Elwyn G, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–72.
Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand MA, Sivell S, Stacey D, O’Connor A, Volk RJ, Edwards A, Bennett C, Pignone M, Thomson R, Elwyn G. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2013;34(6):699–710.
Stacey D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1, CD0014312014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this entry
Cite this entry
Pohl, S., Hastings, K. (2017). Evidence-Based Family Medicine. In: Paulman, P., Taylor, R., Paulman, A., Nasir, L. (eds) Family Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04414-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04414-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04413-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04414-9
eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine