RMH General Medicine Critically Appraised Topics (only available via RMH intranet)
Scott, I. A. and Greenberg, P. B. (2005), Cautionary tales in the clinical interpretation of therapeutic trial reports. Internal Medicine Journal, 35: 611–621. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2005.00929.x RMH copy, RWH copy, PMCC copy
Practising clinicians are assailed daily with reports of new therapeutic clinical trials. The evidence-based medicine movement has developed critical appraisal methods for assessing the validity and impact of such studies. However, challenges persist in regards to the appropriate interpretation and application of trial results within everyday clinical settings. Using selected examples from recently published literature, we illustrate 15 cautionary themes for translating research evidence from therapeutic trials into clinical practice.
Scott, I., Greenberg, P., Poole, P. and Campbell, D. (2006), Cautionary tales in the interpretation of systematic reviews of therapy trials. Internal Medicine Journal, 36: 587–599. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01140.x RMH copy, RWH copy, PMCC copy
This is the second in a series of articles emphasizing the cautions in the interpretation of health-care studies. Systematic reviews are presented as comprehensive, unbiased summaries of evidence and are often referred to by clinicians, guideline developers and health policy-makers. Their strengths and limitations, and how their results can be subject to bias and misinterpretation, are discussed.
NOTE - there are more papers by this author in this series