317
Views
11
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Commentary

Exclusion of ‘nonRCT evidence’ in guidelines for chronic diseases – is it always appropriate? The Look AHEAD study

, &
Pages 2009-2019 | Accepted 14 May 2014, Published online: 09 Jun 2014
 

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The introduction of EBM was a conceptual and practical milestone in the history of medicine, with far-reaching impact yet to be fully realized. EBM has limitations, including inapplicability to populations dissimilar to those in studies, and may not reflect duration of exposure to risk factors, details of lifestyle, incubation period, latency, or environmental changes during chronic diseases. Routine exclusion of evidence other than randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or meta-analyses from consideration in treatment may not always be wise. This review is not a result of a search, but rather a conceptual unification of (a) the increasing restrictions in guideline-writing favoring more RCTs, and rejecting observational studies when chronic diseases with a long incubation period may sometimes be best probed by the latter; (b) the possibility RCTs may be inconclusive, nonapplicable, or result in ‘negative’ results which may misdirect future therapy by physicians and undermine adherence by patients; (c) the potential improvement in patient care from having all available information evaluated (especially epidemiological studies of chronic diseases) and synthesized in guidelines. The example of the Look AHEAD study is chosen – a ‘negative’ RCT with significant information overlooked by reviewers, who initially declared that weight loss and physical activity were ineffective in treating diabetes, or in preventing cardiovascular complications. In this review, placing this study in perspective, among others, suggests the opposite – exercise and weight loss are effective if done early and sufficiently.

Synthesizing worthy data from many sources, including prospective and pathophysiological studies, particularly when RCTs are unavailable, has the potential to add depth and expand the understanding of disease. In addition, integrated data may generate useful, rich material for use during shared decision making discussions with patients, and clarify future hypotheses.

Transparency

Declaration of funding

This review was not funded.

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows: Concept and design: R.K. Analysis and interpretation: U.R., J.M. Drafting of the manuscript: R.K., U.R. Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content and references: J.M., R.K. Administrative and material support: U.R., J.R. CIBERdem is an initiative of ISCIII, Spain.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

R.K., U.R., and J.M. have disclosed that they have no significant relationships with or financial interests in any commercial companies related to this study or article.

CMRO peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 681.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.