Tag Archives: Evidence-based medicine

Flawed evidence based medicine

26 Jan

James Coynes is a professor of psychology who has dedicated an important part of his research field in denouncing the flawed evidence based medicine applied to the psychology practice. His writings in PLOs blog are an example of the critical appraisal we all should exercercise when we read such advertisements as “evidence supported”.
Here bellows is a link toward his posts in PLOs blogs:



26 Oct

To be considered as an author one has to fulfill 3 criteria:

1) to give a critical appraisal of the intellectual content of the paper

2) to endorse the responsibility of the paper

3) to contribute at least partly to the analysis or the gathering of the data or to the research design or the method of the study

Below are enlisted the criteria in French:

recommandations_signatures_article 2011


A Cochrane plenary session

30 Nov

Here below is a link toward an interesting talk which occurred at the 20th Cochrane Coloquium in New Zealand between September 30th and October 3rd of 2012.

It’s about connections

More videos of the conference are available here

Cochrane reviews constitute a precious  mean of disseminating the findings of the research in medicine. They pave the way for more evidence-based medicine in the practice of care.


publication bias

28 Nov

A TED talk on the tendency of never publishing the studies with negative or inconclusive results such leading to the risk of a publication bias:


European Union of Medicine in Assurance and Social Security

25 Mar

Social Security Challenges in Europe

I’m very glad to announce to my readers that an abstract that I have proposed with my colleagues has been accepted and is for now enlisted in the tentative program updated the 12th March 2012. The nineteenth Congress of the European Union of Medicine in Assurance and Social Security will stand this year from the 14th to the 16th of June in Padova, Italia.

The topic will be: Social Security Challenges in Europe and the spectrum of the themes addressed is large:

  1. Population and work force challenges in Europe
  2. A healthy worker in a healthy workplace
  3. Evidence based benefit decisions
  4. Return to work: what works?
  5. The influence of e-health on healthcare


The pros and the cons of CER

27 Jan

CER or Comparative Effectiveness Research has its defenders and its contradictors.

But first of all, what is the CER?

CER typically products guidelines issued from the comparison of respective harms and benefits of medicines or techniques of cure already marketed and used routinely by health care providers.

Defenders argue that this is the core of an evidence based medicine. Guidelines will save a lot of money by showing the best way to cure efficiently.

Contradictors estimate that this is the best way to sterilise the research and the development of new molecules and new procedures of treatment given that guidelines strictly forbid practitioners to welcome new therapies. Since guidelines decide the best state of the art, why care givers should worry and take the risk to try new therapies?

Beside there is the question of the quality of CER and of its independence with regard of the pharmaceutical industry. We have to keep in mind that independence with regard of industry is not automatically a warrant of quality because industry possesses a real research and development capacity.

If you want to read more on the topic of CER:










Bad science (part two)

26 Nov
Cover of "Bad Science"

Cover of Bad Science

Look at this incredible video. The man who is talking is a medical practitioner who has become an epidemiologist. He belongs to a Cochrane group. The Cochrane groups chase false evidence-based medicine by reviewing all the published studies on a particular public health issue (like preventive behaviors, cancer screening, pharmaceutical industry lobbying and so on). It’s an awesome one man show made by a Doctor!

Vodpod videos no longer available.


2 Nov

Guidelines are so frequent now in the field of the scholarly publishing of health research studies (more than 100 reporting guidelines) that some scientific authors thought it was necessary to write a guideline explicating  how to write a guideline! In one word to make it short : a guideline of guideline. I’m no joking; here is the proof: journal.pmed.1000217. The authors of this guideline on how to develop a guideline are all Anglo-Saxons (Canadian, North American and English). I wonder if such a proposition could have been undertaken by Latin people? 😉

%d bloggers like this: