EM · Research, EBM and biostatistics
Research, evidence-based medicine and biostatistics — appraising and applying evidence at the bedside
Also known as Evidence-based medicine · EBM · Critical appraisal · PICO · Number needed to treat · NNT · Likelihood ratio · Sensitivity and specificity · Confidence interval · Type I error · Type II error · Statistical power · Forest plot · GRADE · CONSORT · PRISMA
Research, evidence-based medicine and biostatistics — Sackett's definition of evidence-based medicine as the integration of best research evidence, clinical expertise and patient values; the hierarchy of evidence from meta-analysis and systematic review through randomised controlled trial, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional and ecological designs down to case series and expert opinion; formulating the focused clinical question with PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome); the three-question critical appraisal of validity, results and applicability; the measures of treatment effect — absolute and relative risk reduction, number needed to treat and to harm (NNT and NNH, Laupacis); the measures of diagnostic test performance — sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios (Jaeschke); statistical inference — confidence intervals, p-values, type I and type II errors and power; synthesis of evidence in meta-analysis with heterogeneity (I-squared, Higgins), forest and funnel plots and publication bias; grading the body of evidence with GRADE and the risk-of-bias tools (Cochrane RoB 2, ROBINS-I) and the reporting guidelines (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, QUADAS-2); and the differential of good versus poor quality evidence. ACEM-primary, globally tagged.
Practise this topic
On this page & tools
Your progress
Saved locally on this device.
8 MCQs with explanations
Target exams
Red flags
Related topics
- Quality and ED metrics — performance measurement, the four-hour target and quality improvement
- Medical error and patient safety in the emergency department
- Patient disposition and safety-netting in the emergency department
- Team-based care and crisis resource management in the emergency department
- Consent, capacity and the medico-legal framework in the emergency department
- Arterial blood gas interpretation — the systematic emergency department approach
Meet the patient
A registrar hands you a journal-club paper at the end of a night shift. A new anticoagulant, tested in two thousand patients with acute coronary syndrome, reports a "50 per cent reduction in death or stroke" — a headline that reads as transformative. She asks whether the drug should replace the current standard on the department protocol.[1]
Before you answer, reach for the absolute numbers behind the relative one. The control event rate is 2 per cent and the treated rate is 1 per cent: a 50 per cent relative reduction that is a 1 per cent absolute benefit, a number needed to treat of one hundred. The headline and the bedside decision are not the same sentence, and the appraisal is the discipline that converts one into the other.[1]
You have read the opening of this topic. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Emergency Medicine fellowship atlas.
References16Show ledgerHide ledger
- [1]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't BMJ, 1996.PMID 8555924
- [2]Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions ACP J Club, 1995.PMID 7582737
- [3]Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment N Engl J Med, 1988.PMID 3374545
- [4]Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group JAMA, 1994.PMID 8309035
- [5]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials Int J Surg, 2011.PMID 22019563
- [6]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement BMJ, 2009.PMID 19622551
- [7]von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies Lancet, 2007.PMID 18064739
- [8]Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med, 2011.PMID 22007046
- [9]Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is quality of evidence and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ, 2008.PMID 18456631
- [10]Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ, 2003.PMID 12958120
- [11]Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ, 2011.PMID 22008217
- [12]Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ, 2019.PMID 31462531
- [13]Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions BMJ, 2016.PMID 27733354
- [14]Shakur H, Roberts I, Bautista R, et al. Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial Lancet, 2010.PMID 20554319
- [15]Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, et al. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 N Engl J Med, 2021.PMID 32678530
- [16]Emberson J, Lees KR, Lyden P, et al. Effect of treatment delay, age, and stroke severity on the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials Lancet, 2014.PMID 25106063