• Levels of Evidence

    I hate to say it, but the more I experience the health care system the more I recognize how much health care is not worth its price. I’m not saying all medical care is useless. Far from it. Some things are well understood, and some cures are effective and life-saving. I’m just saying the limitations of medical science and medical practice are larger than most realize or admit, including my younger self.

    This sentiment was expressed clearly in Christie Aschwanden’s recent piece in Miller-McCune (h/t Kaiser Health News).

    A surprising number of medical practices have never been rigorously tested to find out if they really work. Even where evidence points to the most effective treatment for a particular condition, the information is not always put into practice. “The First National Report Card on Quality of Health Care in America,” published by the Rand Corporation in 2006, found that, overall, Americans received only about half of the care recommended by national guidelines.

    Certainly we can learn more with research of the right type. And we should do more about aligning financial incentives with good practice and the following of effective guidelines. Naturally, there is the potential (but not a certainty) that more funding for comparative effectiveness research can help. Aschwanden:

    A $1.1 billion provision in the federal stimulus package [will provide] funds for comparative effectiveness research to find the most effective treatments for common conditions. But these efforts are bound to face resistance when they challenge existing beliefs. … [N]ew evidence often meets with dismay or even outrage when it shifts recommendations away from popular practices or debunks widely held beliefs.

    Aschwanden’s piece goes on to describe how to present evidence to convince practitioners and the public to change firmly held but incorrect beliefs. There’s a mistaken idea that the truth will simply be accepted, when in fact people are generally unable to shed their false mental models. “How do you convince doctors and patients to dump established, well-loved interventions when evidence shows they don’t actually improve health?” she asks.

    Aschwanden’s solution is to emphasize the narrative, even the argument by analogy, not the cold, hard facts. This gets to the issue of what most people take as evidence. People like stories, not numbers. It isn’t the facts they need updated so much as their mental model. Shifting belief is less about marshaling the latest research and more about appealing to intuition.

    Proponents of comparative effectiveness research look for answers in large-scale trials, but these studies hinge on statistics about large groups of people. Such number crunching rarely has the power of personal anecdote.

    That’s all fine, as far as it goes, but it misses a key point. We do need the studies and evidence first. Only then can we figure out how to present empirical findings in a convincing way. But what constitutes scientific evidence? Must comparative effectiveness research necessarily be conducted by clinical trial? A randomized trial can produce the most convincing evidence, but it isn’t always practical or possible (recall my debate with Robin Hanson on this point).

    Observational studies using sound methods that exploit non-experimental randomness can provide high quality evidence. This fact and the associated technique (instrumental variables) are understood by many economists, some physicians, and too few epidemiologists (I eagerly await the day when I’m convinced otherwise). Results from such studies can influence thinking and practice. The American Heart Association and American Stroke Association consider a collection of nonradnomized studies to be an equivalently convincing source of evidence as a single randomized trial, though less convincing than data from multiple randomized trials, which is a sensible position (see figure below from their guidelines).

    levels-of-evidence

    Unfortunately, far too much thinking in medicine and in the rest of our lives is based on the lowest form of evidence, if any. The consensus opinion of experts may be better than nothing but not necessarily. The history of medicine (and most human endeavors) has shown time and again that opinion, even consensus opinion, is often wrong, sometimes tragically so. Moreover, far too often consensus or even one’s own opinion is allowed to override more objective forms of evidence. That’s the psychological problem Aschwanden addressed and may be the most important fact of all.

    Share
    Comments closed
     
    • It is actually pretty difficult to implement some new procedures even when data on them is convincing. Providers already know how to safely perform their current procedures. Sometimes, as seen in the current central line placement initiative, the recommendations seem to make no sense, even if the data is overwhelming. Hospitals, if you are hospital based, have become obsessed with efficiency. It is difficult just to find time to implement new procedures.

      Financial incentives work. When that is not appropriate, personal presentations by a peer seem to work fairly well. I would note that the government can’t do anything right meme seems to have spilled over into unhappiness with academia.

      Steve

      • @steve – Could you elaborate on your last sentence? “I would note that the government can’t do anything right meme seems to have spilled over into unhappiness with academia.” I’m not sure I follow. Who is unhappy with academia? What are the implications? Just trying to get it. Thanks.

    • There has always been a bit of tension between private practice physicians and academics. Many feel that some of the work coming out of academia is not very helpful. I now see this being coupled with anti-government sentiment. We had a bit of a difficult time getting people to buy into the central line regimen to prevent infections as some people said they thought it was just a government rule to enforce its power over physicians. I was surprised since the data on the central line protocol was, IMHO, very strong. It was made hospital policy and everyone complied. At another hospital where I also work, the resistance was even stronger. I had nurses (!!!) try to talk me out of following the protocol. Most docs came around with a little more discussion, but a core of older docs did not conform until it was made hospital policy there also.

      There have always been docs who make it a point to not be told what to do. The resentment towards government being coupled with that sentiment seems much more common now.

      Steve

    • There are definitely a lot of particulars like that to take into consideration. That could be a great point to convey.

    • Excellent website. A lot of beneficial info right here. I am sending it to some buddies and also bookmarking it. And certainly, thanks to your work!