How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?

Mark H. Ebell, Randi Sokol, Aaron Lee, Christopher Simons, Jessica Early

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Our goal was to determine the extent to which recommendations for primary care practice are informed by high-quality research-based evidence, and the extent to which they are based on evidence of improved health outcomes (patient-oriented evidence). As a substrate for study, we used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists. Each of the 721 chapters makes overall recommendations for practice that are graded A, B or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT). SORT A represents consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence; SORT B is inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence and SORT C is expert opinion, usual practice or recommendations relying on surrogate or intermediate outcomes. Pairs of researchers abstracted the evidence ratings for each chapter in tandem, with discrepancies resolved by the lead author. Of 3251 overall recommendations, 18% were graded 'A', 34% were 'B' and 49% were 'C'. Clinical categories with the most 'A' recommendations were pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular, and psychiatric; those with the least were haematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity. 'A' level recommendations were most common for therapy and least common for diagnosis. Only 51% of recommendations are based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life or symptom reduction. In conclusion, approximately half of the recommendations for primary care practice are based on patient-oriented evidence, but only 18% are based on patient-oriented evidence from consistent, high-quality studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)88-92
Number of pages5
JournalEvidence-Based Medicine
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2017

Fingerprint

Primary Health Care
Expert Testimony
Poisoning
Psychiatry
Quality of Life
Research Personnel
Parturition
Morbidity
Pregnancy
Mortality
Health
Research
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Health services administration & management
  • Primary care
  • Quality in health care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Ebell, M. H., Sokol, R., Lee, A., Simons, C., & Early, J. (2017). How good is the evidence to support primary care practice? Evidence-Based Medicine, 22(3), 88-92. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704

How good is the evidence to support primary care practice? / Ebell, Mark H.; Sokol, Randi; Lee, Aaron; Simons, Christopher; Early, Jessica.

In: Evidence-Based Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 3, 01.06.2017, p. 88-92.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ebell, MH, Sokol, R, Lee, A, Simons, C & Early, J 2017, 'How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?', Evidence-Based Medicine, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 88-92. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704
Ebell, Mark H. ; Sokol, Randi ; Lee, Aaron ; Simons, Christopher ; Early, Jessica. / How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?. In: Evidence-Based Medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 88-92.
@article{e4b7839e2fd540269f557c14cb078f8a,
title = "How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?",
abstract = "Our goal was to determine the extent to which recommendations for primary care practice are informed by high-quality research-based evidence, and the extent to which they are based on evidence of improved health outcomes (patient-oriented evidence). As a substrate for study, we used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists. Each of the 721 chapters makes overall recommendations for practice that are graded A, B or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT). SORT A represents consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence; SORT B is inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence and SORT C is expert opinion, usual practice or recommendations relying on surrogate or intermediate outcomes. Pairs of researchers abstracted the evidence ratings for each chapter in tandem, with discrepancies resolved by the lead author. Of 3251 overall recommendations, 18{\%} were graded 'A', 34{\%} were 'B' and 49{\%} were 'C'. Clinical categories with the most 'A' recommendations were pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular, and psychiatric; those with the least were haematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity. 'A' level recommendations were most common for therapy and least common for diagnosis. Only 51{\%} of recommendations are based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life or symptom reduction. In conclusion, approximately half of the recommendations for primary care practice are based on patient-oriented evidence, but only 18{\%} are based on patient-oriented evidence from consistent, high-quality studies.",
keywords = "Health services administration & management, Primary care, Quality in health care",
author = "Ebell, {Mark H.} and Randi Sokol and Aaron Lee and Christopher Simons and Jessica Early",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "88--92",
journal = "Evidence-Based Medicine",
issn = "1356-5524",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?

AU - Ebell, Mark H.

AU - Sokol, Randi

AU - Lee, Aaron

AU - Simons, Christopher

AU - Early, Jessica

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - Our goal was to determine the extent to which recommendations for primary care practice are informed by high-quality research-based evidence, and the extent to which they are based on evidence of improved health outcomes (patient-oriented evidence). As a substrate for study, we used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists. Each of the 721 chapters makes overall recommendations for practice that are graded A, B or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT). SORT A represents consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence; SORT B is inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence and SORT C is expert opinion, usual practice or recommendations relying on surrogate or intermediate outcomes. Pairs of researchers abstracted the evidence ratings for each chapter in tandem, with discrepancies resolved by the lead author. Of 3251 overall recommendations, 18% were graded 'A', 34% were 'B' and 49% were 'C'. Clinical categories with the most 'A' recommendations were pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular, and psychiatric; those with the least were haematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity. 'A' level recommendations were most common for therapy and least common for diagnosis. Only 51% of recommendations are based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life or symptom reduction. In conclusion, approximately half of the recommendations for primary care practice are based on patient-oriented evidence, but only 18% are based on patient-oriented evidence from consistent, high-quality studies.

AB - Our goal was to determine the extent to which recommendations for primary care practice are informed by high-quality research-based evidence, and the extent to which they are based on evidence of improved health outcomes (patient-oriented evidence). As a substrate for study, we used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists. Each of the 721 chapters makes overall recommendations for practice that are graded A, B or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT). SORT A represents consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence; SORT B is inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence and SORT C is expert opinion, usual practice or recommendations relying on surrogate or intermediate outcomes. Pairs of researchers abstracted the evidence ratings for each chapter in tandem, with discrepancies resolved by the lead author. Of 3251 overall recommendations, 18% were graded 'A', 34% were 'B' and 49% were 'C'. Clinical categories with the most 'A' recommendations were pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular, and psychiatric; those with the least were haematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity. 'A' level recommendations were most common for therapy and least common for diagnosis. Only 51% of recommendations are based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life or symptom reduction. In conclusion, approximately half of the recommendations for primary care practice are based on patient-oriented evidence, but only 18% are based on patient-oriented evidence from consistent, high-quality studies.

KW - Health services administration & management

KW - Primary care

KW - Quality in health care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020726193&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020726193&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704

DO - 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 88

EP - 92

JO - Evidence-Based Medicine

JF - Evidence-Based Medicine

SN - 1356-5524

IS - 3

ER -