How to Use an Article About Therapy

Sohail Bajammal · Philipp Dahm · Harriette Miles Scarpero · William Orovan · Mohit Bhandari

20 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Urology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Health Sciences Research and Education Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

PURPOSE: Most surgical interventions have inherent benefits and associated risks. Before implementing a new therapy we should ascertain the benefits and risks of the therapy and assure ourselves that the resources consumed in the intervention will not be exorbitant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We suggest a 3-step approach to using an article from the urological literature to guide patient care. We recommend asking whether the study can provide valid results, reviewing the results and considering how the results can be applied to patient care. RESULTS: Key methodological characteristics that have an impact on the validity of a surgical trial include randomization, allocation concealment, stratification, blinding, completeness of followup and intent to treat analysis. To the extent that the quality is poor inferences from this study are weakened. However, if its quality is acceptable, one must determine the range within which the true treatment effect lies (95% CI). One must then consider whether this result can be generalized to a patient and whether the investigators have provided information about all clinically important outcomes. It is then necessary to compare the relative benefits of the intervention with its risks. If one perceives that the benefits outweigh the risks, the intervention may be of use to the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Given the time constraints of busy urological practices and training programs, applying this analysis to every relevant article would be challenging. However, the basics of this process are essentially what we all do hundreds of times each week when treating patients. Making this process explicit with guidelines to assess the strength of the available evidence will serve to improve patient care. It will also allow us to defend therapeutic interventions based on available evidence and not on anecdote.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

References

2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials 2008A Dictionary of Epidemiology 2001The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials 2002Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions 2001Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials 2001The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews 2004Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 2. Measures of precision (confidence intervals)1999What is meant by ‘intention to treat’ analysis?

Cited by

2011Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based clinical practice 2013How to write a medical original article: Advice from an Editor 2020A Longitudinal Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials for Surgical Interventions to Treat Nephrolithiasis Over 16 Years (2002 to 2017)

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.