Recent Education Event
We were very fortunate to have Jeanette Smith from CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) join us for 2 sessions on Feb 19 to educate us on the difference of Evidence vs Information. She shared a wealth of information, some of which I will try to capture and share here, for those who were unable to attend.
Sifting through Information Overload to find the Evidence
Here is a link to a news article about peanut allergies in The Globe and Mail:
Here are a couple paragraphs from the article with the important searchable information highlighted.
“This is an important clinical development and contravenes previous guidelines,” said Gideon Lack, who led the study at King’s College London.
In results published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Lack found that fewer than 1 percent of the children who ate peanut regularly as required had become allergic by the end of the study, while 17.3 percent in the avoidance group had developed peanut allergy.
By searching for the following in Google, "Lack peanut allergy New England Journal of Medicine" I found the study as the first result in Google. The link to the study is below.
Clinical Trial vs Study vs Expert Opinion
There is a significant difference between a double blind clinical trial funded by a source with no vested interest in the outcome and an expert opinion. Someone with an expert opinion may or may not be correct, but there is not quality data to back it up either way. Not all clinical trials are of a high quality. If you are digging deeply and wish to ensure that you are using sound data to make important health decisions, and you are relying on a clinical trial, please ensure it was completed using sound practices. Studies fall somewhere in between. They are created by looking back at data that has been gathered. There are fewer controls in place and there are more variables that are in play. Keep in mind this acronym:
PICO
Patient Population: Are you looking at the same population being studied as is relevant to you (age, diagnosis, sex)
Intervention: What intervention is being investigated (medication, therapy, technology)
Comparators: Is the intervention being compared to another intervention or to placebo (drug being compared to other therapies, or placebo, or other drug, and/or various dosages)
Outcomes: What are the outcomes? Pay attention to the numbers 5 percent showed improvement, is different than 90 percent. Also how much improvement?
Ghosts
The people who write the studies are not always the people who perform them. Some companies hire and train study writers to project the study in a certain light. If one intervention is 5% effective and another is 6% effective, a study writer could say that the second intervention is 25% MORE effective that the first, yet there is only 1% difference in the outcome and both are not very effective at all. Be careful of the spin.
MICAOntario (Mental Illness Caregivers Association)
This workshop was presented in partnership with MICA. They are a great organization comprised of family members, caregivers and consumers committed to assisting caregivers and their family members in managing the effects of serious and persistent mental illness and/or addictions through education, guidance and support. Their website is below.
Other websites of interest for research
The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CAN)
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK)
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (USA)
The Cochrane Collaboration (International)
