Evidence-based medicine: useful tools for decision making

---

• 1.
• Towler B, Irwig L, Glasziou P, et al. A systematic review of theeffects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occultblood test, hemoccult. BMJ 1998; 317: 559-565.
• 2.
• Cattran DC, Appel GB, Hebert LA, et al. A randomized trial ofcyclosporine in patients with steroid-resistant focal segmentalglomerulosclerosis. North America Nephrotic Syndrome Study Group.Kidney Int 1999; 56: 2220-2226.
• 3.
• Veenstra DL, Saint S, Saha S, et al. Efficacy ofantiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventingcatheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis.JAMA 1999; 281: 261-267.
• 4.
• Williamson JW, German PS, Weiss R, et al.Health science information management and continuing education ofphysicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and theiropinion leaders. Ann Intern Med 1989; 110: 151-160.
• 5.
• Wyatt J. Uses and sources of medical knowledge. Lancet1991; 338: 1368-1372.
• 6.
• Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence-basedmedicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd edition. New York:Churchill Livingston, 2000.
• 7.
• Scott I, Heyworth R, Fairweather P. The use of evidence-basedmedicine in the practice of consultant physicians. Results of aquestionnaire survey. Aust N Z J Med 2000; 30: 319-326.
• 8.
• Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR. Information needsin office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med 1985;103: 596-599.
• 9.
• Osheroff JA, Forsythe DE, Buchanan BG, etal. Physicians' information needs: analysis of questions posedduring clinical teaching. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 576-581.
• 10.
• Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need? BMJ1996; 313: 1062-1068.
• 11.
• Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J,Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key toevidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123: A12-A13.
• 12.
• Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, et al.Users' guides to the medical literature: XIX. Applying clinicaltrial results. A. How to use an article measuring the effect of anintervention on surrogate end points. Evidence-Based MedicineWorking Group. JAMA 1999; 282: 771-778.
• 13.
• National Health and Medical Research Council. Clinical practiceguidelines for the management of early breast cancer. 2nd edition.Canberra: NHMRC, 2000.<http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/advice/pdfcover/eabrscov.htm>
• 14.
• Hunt DL, Jaeschke R, McKibbon KA. Users' guides to the medicalliterature: XXI. Using electronic health information resources inevidence-based practice. JAMA 2000; 283: 1875-1879.
• 15.
• Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Doesquality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates ofintervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet1998; 352: 609-613.
• 16.
• Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al.Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostictests. JAMA 1999; 282: 1061-1066.
• 17.
• National Health and Medical Research Council. How to use theevidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence.Canberra: NHMRC, 2000.
• 18.
• Liddle J, Williamson M, Irwig L. Method for evaluating researchand guideline evidence. Sydney: NSW Health, 1996.
• 19.
• Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. An evidence based approach toindividualising treatment. BMJ 1995; 311: 1356-1359.
• 20.
• Chitalia VC, Wells JE, Robson RA, et al. Predicting renal survivalin primary focal glomerulosclerosis from the time of presentation.Kidney Int 1999; 56: 2236-2242.
• 21.
• Mitchell JB, Ballard DJ, Whisnant JP, et al. What role doneurologists play in determining the costs and outcomes of strokepatients? Stroke 1996; 27: 1937-1943.
• 22.
• Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Spiegelman D, et al. Adverse outcomesof underuse of beta-blockers in elderly survivors of acutemyocardial infarction. JAMA 1997; 277: 115-121.
• 23.
• Krumholz HM, Radford MJ, Ellerbeck EF, et al. Aspirin forsecondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction in theelderly: prescribed use and outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1996;124: 292-298.
• 24.
• Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medicalpractice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations.Lancet 1993; 342: 1317-1322.
• 25.
• Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, Haynes RB. No magic bullets: asystematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improveprofessional practice. CMAJ 1995; 153: 1423-1431.
• 26.
• Walton R, Dovey S, Harvey E, Freemantle N. Computer support fordetermining drug dose: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ 1999; 318: 984-990.
• 27.
• Chatellier G, Colombet I, Degoulet P. Computer-adjusted dosageof anticoagulant therapy improves the quality of anticoagulation.Medinfo 1998; 9 Pt 2: 819-823.
• 28.
• Montgomery AA, Fahey T. A systematic review of the use of computersin the management of hypertension. J Epidemiol CommunityHealth 1998; 52: 520-525.
• 29.
• Early Breast Cancer Triallists' Collaborative Group. Tamoxifenfor early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials.Lancet 1998; 351: 1451-1467.
• 30.
• Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reportingof randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.JAMA 1996; 276: 637-639.
• 31.
• Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality ofreports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: theQUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-1900.