Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

The Filtering of Medical Evidence Has Clearly Failed

By Ryan Patrick Radecki, MD, MS | on November 1, 2013 | 0 Comment
Opinion
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Let me tell you about this fabulous new test – it’s far better than the old tests, I’ve got a decade’s worth of research publications to show you, plus it’s a floor wax and a dessert topping.

You Might Also Like
  • Antibiotic Therapy for Abscesses Medical Dogma Challenged by Evidence-Based Research, Outcomes
  • Medical Students, Residents Can Teach Each Other Things in Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Medical Evidence Revisits Acute Kidney Injury Risk with Contrast-Induced Nephropathy
Explore This Issue
ACEP News: Vol 32 – No 11 – November 2013

Who am I? Why, I’m simply an academic clinician, advocating for this test because it’s the next great thing to help us tailor treatments to patients. Does it matter that I’m on the unofficial payroll of the manufacturer of the test equipment?

That is the question, sadly, physicians and policy-makers are asked to make with recurring regularity when trying to translate clinical research to patient care. To make these choices, we rely on layers of experts and statisticians to do the heavy lifting in the review process.

This starts at the initial process of institutional review, filters up through pilot studies, then small publications, and finally, systematic reviews and publications in the most prominent medical journals.

By the time the state of the art reaches these most prominent journals, it ought to be possible that we can put unfailing faith in its veracity.

This is decidedly not the case. Earlier this year, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a “Clinical Evidence Synopsis” covering the use of procalcitonin measurements to promote antibiotic stewardship.

This synopsis strongly endorses the use of procalcitonin assays to guide antibiotic prescribing in pneumonia and summarizes 14 positive studies in support of its recommendations. I hardly count myself an expert in this area, but I recalled at the minimum a couple recent studies showing procalcitonin-guided strategies were ineffective or harmful.

To cut a long story short, the JAMA article is written by three physicians who have financial conflicts of interest with the manufacturer of the procalcitonin assay. The evidence they summarize is a Cochrane Review that counts themselves and a total of eight authors who declare COI with the manufacturer.

On top of that, 11 of the 14 positive studies included in the Cochrane Review are published by authors who declare COI with the manufacturer. I reviewed each of these articles, and they count amongst themselves trials performed in heterogenous settings with small sample sizes (as few as 8!), high risks of bias, and significant limitations.

The filtering of medical evidence has clearly failed on multiple levels to reach this point. Practicing clinicians have neither the free time to comb through the original articles, nor likely the institutional access that allows them to even download them without incurring substantial costs.

Pages: 1 2 | Single Page

Topics: AntibioticBloggEDConflict of InterestEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianEthicsLab TestResearch

Related

  • The Evidence for Empathy in the Emergency Department

    June 17, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • ACEP4U: Reinventing Research Education

    June 11, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • June 2025 News from the College

    June 5, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: June 2025 (Digital)

Read More

About the Author

Ryan Patrick Radecki, MD, MS

Ryan Patrick Radecki, MD, MS, is an emergency physician and informatician with Christchurch Hospital in Christchurch, New Zealand. He is the Annals of Emergency Medicine podcast co-host and Journal Club editor and can be found on Twitter @emlitofnote.

View this author's posts »

No Responses to “The Filtering of Medical Evidence Has Clearly Failed”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603